From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Noah Lavine Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: redo-safe-variables and redo-safe-parameters Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:46:27 -0400 Message-ID: References: <13378334.Jv25yq6OaM@warperdoze> <36877746.VlrjcRTRXD@warperdoze> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b15ab3794b9ed04d8eef9d5 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1364420815 8101 80.91.229.3 (27 Mar 2013 21:46:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:46:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Noah Lavine Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 27 22:47:22 2013 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 1UKyBj-00089U-81 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:47:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38252 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKyBL-0001UX-0g for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:46:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48653) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKyBH-0001UF-Fa for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:46:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKyBE-0004RH-Rb for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:46:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pd0-f182.google.com ([209.85.192.182]:34033) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKyBE-0004RD-LE for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:46:48 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pd0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 3so639418pdj.27 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:46:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=G48YsRkLoaNLmOf6D/lRlg5iSX7IXv4fgIsd3tPQoDU=; b=xjW7EELZrpn4x7YlIlbYpkbekE9Ev3VhQscKSvUaElk1IxSuGlMa1TtYfapEld2Wsd z2jQIlEIas5Qa9HmQ2zv0b5vTZZdrGKYgosqrFwguw11HnYsv3IIZLOLFXEMgf90Vg07 X7WHOmX/v63e2I5NVNvl0A2iUfbaFCrKZ0FPkq44yOp4kKKYPLmq1oCCs8b1vegOHVOQ Up9sweQyET6dMrKc981ZHxfEzsDjMLhSiUSE44AXxn5ipm26qRWkWHSxUgrmYhCegxMN mW/oGlV6RNB4Dwo4eOAU3sQpUnlQvGfderSEEx5s/rExbo/J28RaUtSOb71uQCorgi0I /VLA== X-Received: by 10.68.203.226 with SMTP id kt2mr31441862pbc.3.1364420807930; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:46:47 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.68.157.42 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:46:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: yAWLKvHhr75Ac96cHT8WYNLAd18 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.192.182 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:16040 Archived-At: --047d7b15ab3794b9ed04d8eef9d5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Noah Lavine wrote: > > Since it's definable with such a simple macro, I don't think it's > appropriate for a SRFI. > > Sorry, I just realized that that's not a sensible objection. If it's a better interface than parameters, then it certainly should be a SRFI. However, I won't be convinced of that until I've played with both for a while. So I would suggest waiting a bit until it's clear what the best way to manage variables like this is. Noah --047d7b15ab3794b9ed04d8eef9d5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Noah Lavine <noah.= b.lavine@gmail.com> wrote:

Since it's definable with such= a simple macro, I don't think it's appropriate for a SRFI.


Sorry, I= just realized that that's not a sensible objection. If it's a bett= er interface than parameters, then it certainly should be a SRFI. However, = I won't be convinced of that until I've played with both for a whil= e. So I would suggest waiting a bit until it's clear what the best way = to manage variables like this is.

Noah
--047d7b15ab3794b9ed04d8eef9d5--