felix winkelmann wrote:
So, it isn't intentionally that way, it's just what the code does.
Thanks for clearing that up.
By the way, I want to say that I really wasn't looking for an argument.
My initial question was a bit abrupt, and I was too quick to use the
word "bug." I think there's a bit of culture shock going on here, too
-- most of my programming in the last 4 years or so has been in OCaml.
One of the main reasons I became interested in Scheme (again) was that I
came to think that static typing is overrated -- or at least, not as
universally useful as its advocates like to believe. Nonetheless, I've
gotten accustomed to a world where datatypes are used very precisely to
model the semantics of your problem domain. So when I see a function
behaving in a way that implies semantics that aren't in the spec, it
just doesn't feel right. Even if I know it's not really a problem in
practice.
--
Matt Gushee
: Bantam - lightweight file manager : matt.gushee.net/software/bantam/ :
: RASCL's A Simple Configuration Language : matt.gushee.net/rascl/ :
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
