On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Anton van Straaten wrote:
> AndrevanTonder wrote:
>>
>> I am not in favour of URIs, but I think the same objection can be made to
>> the current draft proposal of using a list of symbols, instead of an
>> identifier, for naming.
>
> If so, I think that the objection differs significantly in degree from the
> objection to URIs. However, I don't agree with the objection in this
> context.
I agree that symbol lists are more Schemely than URIs. However, in
comparison to Oleg's compound names, draft r6rs compound
library names would be significantly more difficult to integrate with
lexical scoping and hygiene in any future extension allowing lexical
libraries (though that is probably forever off the table, right?).
Even Oleg's names did not do well with lexical scoping since they were
not indivisible units, so one could shadow parts of the compound
identifier individually like so:
(let ((point (make point 1 2)))
(display (point x))
where the compound identifier (point x) would not work because the first
componenet point was rebound, etc.
Andre
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
