> 1. The claim of "adverse global effects on performance"
> needs to be supported. Having used and implemented these
I agree that there don't seem to be many instances where this makes a huge
difference. Certainly nothing becomes O(n) instead of O(1). For (length),
for example, there's just an extra check at each step -- no need for
hare-and-tortoise.
> 2. The claim of circularity bugs being uncommon may be
> true, though there is no evidence of it. I personally
I have never seen a circularity bug, or heard of anyone who has seen one.
Has anyone here ever had a circularity bug?
> so what? Making Scheme easy to implement is not a goal
> of R6RS as far as I can tell.
Scary quote. When I first saw the spec size, I had the feeling that making
Scheme *harder* to implement was a goal of R6RS (though some of my
concerns have been subsequently alleviated).
Best,
Dan Muresan
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~muresan
Received on Mon Oct 02 2006 - 06:01:37 UTC