On Fri, 17 May 2019 21:44:12 +0200 Peter Bex <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 10:30:14PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: >> Some of the defining forms reject keywords now, but there may be some >> we missed, and by making them completely distinct we fix these problems >> for good. For the vast majority of the code out there this is an >> unimportant change. Code which relies on symbol? returning #t for keywords >> will run into trouble (but is usually easy to fix by adding another cond >> clause for keyword?, which will happily be backwards compatible to older >> CHICKENs). There may be other obscure uses of keywords that will fail, but >> I can't really think of many. > > So far nobody has bothered to reply here or on the ticket at all. > It will be two weeks after next Monday (the 20th). > > As our process document at https://wiki.call-cc.org/change-requests > says that if two weeks pass without comments, it should be assumed nobody > cares enough or has a problem with the change. > > I've heard from Felix on IRC, he said he's worried we're changing too > much at once in 5.1. Personally, I think if we make this change in a > later version it'll be more frustrating for users, because we're already > changing how keywords behave (no plists, cannot be used as identifiers > anymore). Making keywords and symbols distinct types later means we'll > have two such changes. > > To sum up, we could: > > 1) Not make this change at all > 2) Do it anyway in 5.1 > 3) Do it in some later version (but how long do we wait?) > > What do the other hackers think? Please, speak up! I'd vote for 2. All the best. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
