Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> skribis: > On Tue 25 Mar 2014 18:01, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Tu put it differently, I don’t think it would buy us anything to make >> variable SRFI-111 boxes. > > Dunno; variables are slightly cheaper than records. Their type checks > are easier and they take less memory. > >> However, it could perhaps break code > > In what way?
‘variable?’ would suddenly match any SRFI-111 box. >> and would not allow for a separate type printer, which is useful. > > Not sure what this point is, as the external representation was not > specified in SRFI-111. I mean this: #<variable 15cb830 value: #<procedure + (#:optional _ _ . _)>> vs. #<box 206f8c0 value: #<procedure + (#:optional _ _ . _)>> I find it convenient that variables are distinguished. > Perhaps we are miscommunicating -- I would change what we currently call > "variables" to be "boxes". WDYT? You mean just the name, or making them SRFI-111 boxes? Anyway, I don’t feel strongly about this particular point, but I think we’ve been deprecating a lot lately. Ludo’.
