From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 23:23:33 +0100 Message-ID: <87k3bjtevu.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87a9elkjmo.fsf@netris.org> <87txctzpjy.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <874n4tlka7.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1395699820 23126 80.91.229.3 (24 Mar 2014 22:23:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 22:23:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 24 23:23:50 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-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 1WSDHZ-00052Z-F2 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 23:23:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38625 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WSDHZ-0000a1-0i for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:23:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60991) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WSDHS-0000UH-1F for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:23:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WSDHN-0003Ns-5O for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:23:41 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:44638 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WSDHN-0003No-2E; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:23:37 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F4911850; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:23:36 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=t6Wkgb64664W s3yXAOY+zPzuMdA=; b=BG5DXBwaLPQVSvfylljObjEFVPb4yTKuiqql8RzxIcTK m0rFNU/DT89BZTGaZs8puJCmUm6QJ2sQLZRNSrOGJShjV4e1qBfv5XzTuSPdYFng c6J0XcNUbHWWIaOHXxpdV6H5V+mKE6WmIx+Ubj6Ohl2++G/rHOiizsyXGKN/vdI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=UDFCkS waajXrhcut/a1g2J/trmAXoPVsh94DN4WduOeqLjtAfAQIhZ8SGJTgSGBcpZZaVc Bbkj59lOQcx8fVSrT3pun8wuLZIp4rRui7IeJRv3NLQcyMDN2LsoQz/WO5E3mP1A zlxPNK5JcBby25eaRuTXoh3cmbKDwDZCn4+ks= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9871184F; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:23:36 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E52241184C; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:23:35 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <874n4tlka7.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:57:20 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F1000A5A-B3A2-11E3-A790-873F0E5B5709-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 208.72.237.25 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:17004 Archived-At: A late reply, but at least the year is right :) On Fri 24 Jan 2014 11:57, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer") skribi= s: > >> Has it been considered to coalesce the box type with Guile's "variable" >> type? I can see two concrete differences: >> >> * External representation (*not* specified by SRFI-111) >> >> * Variables can be "unbound" (empty), boxes can't >> >> So we could get away with making the box API consist of aliases to a >> subset of the variable API and still conform to SRFI-111. > > Even though both types are box-like, they represent conceptually > different things, so I think it=E2=80=99s better to keep them disjoint. Why do you think so? To me, Guile's variables are boxes, and the ability to make a variable unbound is a Guile extension. Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/