On Jun 22, William D Clinger wrote:
> 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.
>
> Are you suggesting that one man's feature is another man's bug?
Yes. I'm very unoriginal.
(Mostly irrelevant the the thread at this point, but I should add that
I'm not at all against the REPL -- I *like* having a REPL, it's a
great tool for what it can do. But if a (R5RS-style) REPL makes it
completely impossible for me to write any meaningful code, then I
certainly don't want to use it for developing code.)
On Jun 22, Alan Watson wrote:
> 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. [...]
Of course not. It is only your opinion that there is irony -- in my
eyes I see two improvements to the language, which is not ironic at
all. (I'm sure someone will now be happy to pull out a dictionary
just to show me how wrong I am, and how irony is a provable+subjective
property of the report...)
> And my opinion might not be what you expect and might be different
> depending on whether we're talking about R5RS or R6RS.
This is exactly my point, ironically.
> > 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. [...]
Right, I should have included that too.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Received on Fri Jun 22 2007 - 20:19:05 UTC