AndrevanTonder wrote:
> I do not personally like one-armed IF, but let me point out that
> AND/OR can also be used instead of WHEN/UNLESS. In fact, AND/OR can
> be more concise than WHEN/UNLESS when there is more than one
> condition. Having said that, using AND/OR this way does feel somewhat
> artificial in some cases, and I would in some cases rather use
> WHEN/UNLESS if it were standardized. In such a case, I would prefer
> it to be in the base library.
I like things like WHEN/UNLESS on the grounds that, though formally
redundant, a little bit of syntactic variability like that /can/ make
programs much easier to read.
At the same time, I wonder if the R6RS effort isn't fundamentally
overburdened. On the one hand, there are hard issues to resolve about
the core language. On the other hand, there's all this sentiment that
R6RS should play the role of a kind of Common Scheme (analogous to
Common Lisp).
As a wildcard: perhaps it would be better to have a more narrowly
focused R6 at one end, SRFIs at the other end, and in between a new
committee whose role is to, in some sense, elevate the best libraries
and extensions-beyond-core in a way that the SRFI process can not.
-t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/attachments/20070313/f77d1a79/attachment.htm
Received on Tue Mar 13 2007 - 14:03:34 UTC