From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Generators (iterators) for Gnu Emacs Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 11:01:17 +0100 Message-ID: <877fy2cvf6.fsf@zigzag.favinet> References: <877fy77zhp.fsf@web.de> <87k326d4ww.fsf@gmail.com> <877fy6rp2o.fsf@web.de> <548230FB.40307@dancol.org> <5482C872.5010304@dancol.org> <5483C537.3010707@dancol.org> <54840719.5080209@dancol.org> <87ppbv4bdt.fsf@ferrier.me.uk> <5484C780.3080902@dancol.org> <5484E52A.8020107@dancol.org> <54850BDD.1020202@dancol.org> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1418032669 12341 80.91.229.3 (8 Dec 2014 09:57:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:57:49 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 08 10:57:42 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxv4V-0000eu-Tj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:57:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60952 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxv4V-00035e-Ja for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 04:57:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35845) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxv4A-0002wv-V1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 04:57:24 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxv45-0001us-2E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 04:57:18 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp205.alice.it ([82.57.200.101]:42291) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxv44-0001um-O3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 04:57:12 -0500 Original-Received: from zigzag.favinet (79.51.120.16) by smtp205.alice.it (8.6.060.28) id 547D8A4D01829AFD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:57:09 +0100 Original-Received: from ttn by zigzag.favinet with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxv8A-0001QG-3I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 11:01:26 +0100 Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Sun, 07 Dec 2014 22:23:58 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 82.57.200.101 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:179368 Archived-At: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable () Stefan Monnier () Sun, 07 Dec 2014 22:23:58 -0500 In other words, any improvement that tries to reduce the redundancy in identifiers will require corresponding improvement in our tools to infer the now-implicit information. Right. Sez Alan Perlis: Wherever there is modularity there is the potential for misunderstanding: Hiding information implies a need to check communication. so the onerous activity here is the "check communication". I would argue that the current FOO- scheme, being merely convention, is actually more needful of inference than the proposed FOO:: scheme. If modularity is directly supported, we (programs and humans, both) can turn from heuristics to algorithms, w/ corresponding reduction in worry and angst that the "check" is incomplete or incoherent. That said, my experience (largely positive) is entirely w/ Guile Scheme modules, and i imagine that Emacs' modules would be similar. I don't know how Common Lisp does it -- maybe someone who knows both systems could post a comparison? =2D-=20 Thien-Thi Nguyen GPG key: 4C807502 (if you're human and you know it) read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical) (not (via 'mailing-list))) =3D> nil --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlSFdvAACgkQZwMiJEyAdQLYhwCdF+LT0hhxcQ7mnRhZ/9GS1Gza hwoAoJIIR+B6d16e3TP/D9f8Ux4FK9gF =t3HN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--