From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: #f/() tedium Date: 05 Sep 2002 00:33:29 -0700 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <871y88evqu.fsf@becket.becket.net> References: <200209050725.AAA20302@morrowfield.regexps.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1031211032 21026 127.0.0.1 (5 Sep 2002 07:30:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 07:30:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17mr5x-0005Ss-00 for ; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:30:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17mr7Z-0006mt-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 03:32:09 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17mr79-0006dP-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 03:31:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17mr76-0006d4-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 03:31:42 -0400 Original-Received: from vp190174.reshsg.uci.edu ([128.195.190.174] helo=becket.becket.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17mr76-0006c8-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 03:31:40 -0400 Original-Received: from tb by becket.becket.net with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17mr8r-0002En-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:33:29 -0700 Original-To: Tom Lord X-Reply-Permission: Posted or emailed replies to this message constitute permission for an emailed response. X-PGP-Fingerprint: 1F0A1E51 63 28 EB DA E6 44 E5 5E EC F3 04 26 4E BF 1A 92 X-Zippy-Says: My face is new, my license is expired, and I'm under a doctor's care!!!! In-Reply-To: <200209050725.AAA20302@morrowfield.regexps.com> Original-Lines: 59 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1303 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1303 Tom Lord writes: > It bugs me when people site R5RS as a reason to do _anything_ to their > scheme impl., and this is a timely time to mention it. Except that it's already been done. Nobody is trying to figure out whether Guile should have #f != (). The only question is whether we should *reverse* that decision... out of what? A desire not to be compatible with R5RS? > Some aspects of RnRS, such as the I/O procedures, are clearly so > academic as to be nearly worthless in practice. In that light, > examine the #f/() distinction. The I/O procedures are actually useful in practice. At least, I use them in practice, in the same kinds of contexts I would use the corresponding getc/putc functions from C. But sure, they are a bare skeleton, and of no great interest in themselves. And yet, it would be a serious mistake to ignore them on that ground. Any decent Scheme system can implement them easily, and should. Of course, that's no reason not to also implement a good set of comprehensive I/O routines. > Against this, I suppose, are the SRFIs. I haven't surveyed them to > see how heavily they rely on #f != (). I did find that Olin's list > library was an easy port. It used to be (still is?) a design > principle of slib to be agnostic on the issue. Suppose we were designing a language anew. What possible reason is there for making the space of boolean values have anything to do with the space of proper lists? It seems to me that conventional practice of Lisp is the only reason for that, and the argument from conventional practice allowed the names "car" and "cdr" and "cons" into Scheme, with a wink and a smile, and used to allow the possibility of #f = (), but no longer does. The argument from conventional practice has some merit, but not when the convention has now changed. And I can see no reasons whatsoever aside from "that's what Lisp does" for maintaining what seems to me to be a bit of non-orthogonal inanity. That is, if you can explain why integer 0 should not be the empty list, or perhaps (integer->character 0), or why not even #t! aside from the argument "that's what Lisp does", then I'm all ears. > And, as tb and I seem to have agreed to disagree off list (hope I'm > not misrepresenting you too badly, tb), No, I think I was very clear. As long as you continue to bring up the "issue" on the list, I will answer you on the list. If you find it so damn tedious (as your subject indicates) then why do you bring it up like clockwork? Thomas _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel