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] |
> I don't like the idea of extending Scheme with the new mechanism of a > binding between procedure objects. Of course you could look upon it > as a simple table lookup, but it is not good to encourage people to > use such a mechism for the elementary operation of storing a value in > a location. You have the same issue whether you are talking about extended set! or "static" setf! or "dynamic" setf! So I take it you oppose setf!. > I would very much like Guile to be a Scheme interpreter + useful > libraries. I'm much more afraid of language bloat than of code bloat. But the libraries (with their associated names) are part of the language. My preference is to avoid concept bloat, in terms of the number of different things a programmer needs to know. > I can see how read-only bindings > in the new module system can help the compiler to determine which > procedures can be inlined. Should we now introduce > read-only-procedure-bindings so that the compiler can do the same > thing for setters? Yes. --Per Bothner Cygnus Solutions bothner@cygnus.com http://www.cygnus.com/~bothner