Eli Barzilay wrote:
> The irony is there only if you consider the ability to redefine
> standard procedures as a good thing. Some people don't.
The irony is there regardless of my opinion. And my opinion might not be
what you expect and might be different depending on whether we're
talking about R5RS or R6RS.
> In this specific case, I don't like it that my code depends on whoever
> used the repl before me.
Not just before you, but after you too.
Perhaps this problem could be solved neatly by R5.91-like declarations,
perhaps in R7RS. One could use a declaration to declare that a portion
of code should fail to compile (or something) if mutable pairs are used
anywhere in the current program.
Alan
Received on Fri Jun 22 2007 - 18:28:29 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Wed Oct 23 2024 - 09:15:01 UTC