Carl Eastlund scripsit:
> First, I do not see that the R6RS standard should enforce a particular
> naming convention on programmers. If a programmer needs to import and
> export the same name (but not with the same value), currently they
> have choices. They can import NAME as original-NAME, then define NAME
> and export it as NAME. Or they can import NAME as NAME, then define
> modified-NAME and export it as NAME. For clarity, they could even
> import NAME as original-NAME, then define modified-NAME and export it
> as NAME. I see no reason to force all programmers to use the first
> convention.
Several people have pointed out the force of this to me when you are
redefining something fundamental, like LAMBDA.
So I withdraw this comment.
--
You are a child of the universe no less John Cowan
than the trees and all other acyclic http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
graphs; you have a right to be here. cowan_at_ccil.org
--DeXiderata by Sean McGrath
Received on Wed Jan 24 2007 - 19:47:47 UTC