This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
weasel@cs.stanford.edu writes: > At 08:54 PM 7/15/98 , Jim Blandy wrote: > >Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@mit.edu> writes: > >> > python, > >> > >> Python has, AFAIK, a straightforward syntax and very clean semantics > >> from a Schemish point of view. One thing I've heard that may be tricky > >> is that lambda in Python does not create proper closures; OTOH I hope > >> no one depends on this behavior. > > I don't think that elisp has proper closures either. Well, it did not have > them in emacs 19, but this might have changed. > Elisp is entirely dynamically scoped so this matters less. You can't close over lexical variables when you don't have any. > >> > tcl (without tk), > >> > >> Tcl sucks because the only Tcl datatype is a string. Language > >> primitives will automatically treat strings as numbers, lists, > >> booleans, or code to be evaluated as appropriate. > > > >Yep. Keep in mind that we only have to make the boundary between > >Scheme and Tcl convenient, not perfect. There will be much oddity > >here. > > Hmmm.... just because the target language passes things around as strings > does not mean that the host has to do the same thing especially for > primative sorts of things like for math support etc. Am I missing something > here? > Yes, Tcl apps are written to expect transparent conversion. They expect to be able to pass any of 37, "37" or {37} to a function that expects a number and have it be a number, a string for anything that needs a string, a list of one element (which is a number of a string as appropriate) for anything that needs that, and so forth. Scheme procedures are not written to do this internal conversion. - Maciej