Wolfgang, what do you think? We should get it right with SRFI 224 first (before it is finalized) and then we can correct SRFI 113 and 146 (am I missing another relevant SRFI) ex post facto.
Thanks, Marc Am Mi., 2. Juni 2021 um 19:18 Uhr schrieb Shiro Kawai <[email protected] >: > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 1:45 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Copy-transient, however, can make sense by choosing the right semantics. >> As I wrote in my earlier posts, a procedure taking a transient object and >> returning one can be of a lot of types: >> >> An explicit diagonal operation (diag x) would take a transient object X >> and return two transient objects, both being independent copies of the then >> invalidated X. >> >> If the underlying implementation is such that one copy is exactly the >> invalidated X, we don't need the second value and arrive at a procedure we >> could then call copy-transient. >> > > Ah, right. If we don't force "any procedure that takes transient struct > invalidates it", then we can have meaningful copy-transient, that does not > invalidate the input and returns an independent transient copy of the input. > > >
