Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit: > But, ah, can everyone please be a bit less emotive and "personal" about > this issue? Nobody's out to destroy Scheme here (unless we have > UNDERGROUND AGENTS from the RUBY/PERL/JAVA/PHP/INSERT-ENEMY-HERE > COMMUNITY! ;-) - just throwing out ideas on what might be best for it.
Well, actually I am an aboveground agent for several of those communities. Eli Barzilay scripsit: > Seems that I need to repeat this a fifth time: > - I do *not* use a language with no mutation, > - I do *not* advocate a language with no mutation, > - I do *not* want a language with no mutation, > - I do *not* teach a language with no mutation. Or, in short: "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Puritist Party." David Rush scripsit: > This seems rather arbitrary, and wrong-headed (due to knock-on effects) > in light of things like breaking mutable a-lists. Scheme is a language > which allows free mutation of bindings and primitive objects. Immutable > pairs is a big step on a slippery slope to a very different language. To be fair, it only breaks mutable a-lists of which the cdr is mutated; car mutation isn't really a problem. (I agree that mutable-car/immutable-cdr pairs would be a Good Thing; indeed, one could view vectors as lists made with such pairs.) Out of curiosity, would you have similar objections to immutable strings? -- [W]hen I wrote it I was more than a little John Cowan febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot co...@ccil.org that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith http://ccil.org/~cowan in the benignancy of vegetables. --And Rosta _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
