Re: redo-safe-variables and redo-safe-parameters

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.itampe@gmail.com>]

Yeah, they are different for sure, The last attempt failed though the
previous one was better.

The reson I have a hard time trying to code it is that In one end I
wouldl like to build the
spec on what's already there. And on the other hand make sure that it
play well with dynamic states.

The issue is that I don't want to spoil some natural optimisations due
to a bad spec.
The old approach meant that you alway's needed to use the expensive
version of the construct and spoil much of it's simplicity in
implemenetation.

I will have new try, this evening.

/Stefan


On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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