On 2010-12-23, at 15:49, Peter Kourzanov wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 14:33 -0800, Vincent Manis wrote:
>> So, please: 
>> 
>>  1. small, clean, core language, with a modest number of extensions to
>> existing standards (though, I hope, nothing that is an extension to
>> existing practice). 
> 
> Then we should have stopped at R4RS and declared it the ultimate Scheme,
> which is the point where some important implementations have stopped. 
Actually, R5RS is where many important implementations stopped. I primarily use 
Gambit and Chicken in my work. 

>> From my experience the lack of pattern matching, not even dynamic typing
> anymore, that is the feature that makes many people go Haskell or ML.
> That is sad to see, especially in an otherwise powerful language that
> advocates program-as-data philosophy, yet at the same time permeates
> half-baked solutions like (define (x y . z)), case/eqv?, case-lambda and
> let-values... THAT does sound like piling feature upon feature upon
> feature. 

Absolutely no disagreement here. Pattern matching is extremely important, and I 
hope WG2 can come up with a clean set of pattern matching facilities. Having 
said that, I'm reluctant to change (as opposed to cleaning up specifications 
for) anything defined in R5RS (or in some cases R6RS). C.A.R. Hoare once said 
something to the effect that the absolute last place to do any language design 
is in preparing a standard. This has always struck me as very sensible. 

As for things like case-lambda and let-values (defined in SRFIs), and match 
(defined by various implementations), I don't care too much about the APIs. If 
these are all unified into some glorious do-what-i-want form, I'm likely to 
write implementations of the older forms as macros, so as not to break my 
existing code. If it's possible to harmonize them, great. If not, having 
explicit matching provided in an official library is far more important than 
the exact API to be chosen. 

-- vincent

 
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports

Reply via email to