A comment or two from the peanut gallery...
On 7/24/07, Thomas Lord <lord at emf.net> wrote:
>
> I've reconciled myself to R6 partly by thinking it's useful, partly that
> it's an accurate report on where folks are at -- but also partly because
> it seems like a challenge problem: "simplify *this*, if you can" it seems
> to beg for.
>
> If you know what I mean.
There is enough to like about the draft that I will happily import (rnrs (5
97)) even if you all take you marbles and go home tomorrow. The library
system, Unicode, bytevectors, i/o, etc., well done folks!!!
Records. Hohum! I guess as a "report" (rnRs) it ought to include something
like this, but I've never taken to the style of
make-type type? type-field type-field-set!
Scheme already has an encapsulation mechanism: closures! It should be
"(<type> 'make) ((obj 'is-a?) <type>) (obj 'field)" and either "(set! (obj
'field) value)" or "((obj 'set!) 'field value)" according to your tastes.
Which do you prefer:
(port-has-port-position? x) and the (rnrs io ports (6)) export list, or
((x 'has?) 'position) and <port>?
There! How's that for simple? The only trick is to get a compiler smart
enough to make something like C++ virtual tables out of it.
Crawling back under my rock...
-John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/attachments/20070725/9b5d3db5/attachment.htm
Received on Wed Jul 25 2007 - 09:06:01 UTC