From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: (. wtf?) Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 06:32:07 +0200 Message-ID: References: <110317045333325207.civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr> <5y949ftu.dag@gnui.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4AMdDnkRWwHBnd4C" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="22185"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon May 08 06:32:41 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pvsYC-0005aL-VE for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 08 May 2023 06:32:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvsXz-0006S1-CK; Mon, 08 May 2023 00:32:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvsXp-0006Rl-HX for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 May 2023 00:32:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.tuxteam.de ([5.199.139.25]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvsXl-0005uW-EJ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 May 2023 00:32:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuxteam.de; s=mail; h=From:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=x8qstpO4U9xBaHCxitN5JdjMsOWjES0qALK1C0+cssc=; b=nxoH2CiHz1JUQPCQMBc1KwD6Pm 25nexqXh57NnwtsOaZYJxKn3pPrWi9NUUon75RpNm6PaVK+I3JvXUCuwUYBXPA0c/3QOXmR090UfR 3wgtBNlqfSfggMwhSqZPTG5bPZNhOn/iuum6IZJYdv4UyqAhhFMMpIKmrZBMDtcswsVit/h3nCUXH ZMZyzrR7aLM5La4YM70AQiG8BF4gTEOiUB33aSN+QTB5m35poNSNeDl8OVMCxHt/TdJ9B8T8yEq56 sQ3+gFVNjCke1i53/UkYkI5/lM3/6i0CcMdcdqfcEwNWXuNF+fx7xOcKu0OQJQX/SJTyG7QxggDhy J+e67a5g==; Original-Received: from tomas by mail.tuxteam.de with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1pvsXf-0002NL-Pb for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 May 2023 06:32:07 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5y949ftu.dag@gnui.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.199.139.25; envelope-from=tomas@tuxteam.de; helo=mail.tuxteam.de X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.lisp.guile.devel:21819 Archived-At: --4AMdDnkRWwHBnd4C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 09:06:21PM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > On Fri, 05 May 2023 16:35 Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > > (call-with-input-string "(. wtf?)" read) > > > > =E2=87=92 wtf? > > > > #Guile #Scheme >=20 > Hey!^W Sorry... >=20 > Dear Guile developer, >=20 > your tweet made me deeply concerned. Is it a sign that this behaviour is= going to be =E2=80=98fixed=E2=80=99 eventually? >=20 > Besides actually being (imho) the only right thing to do: explanation bel= ow aside, just compare: > #+begin_src scheme > (define (fu bar) ...) > (=CE=BB (bar) ...) > (define (fu . quux) ...) > (=CE=BB (. quux) ...) > #+end_src >=20 > it is required for compatibility with elisp; where it=CA=BCs not only obs= erved de-facto: > #+begin_src elisp > '(. foo) > ;; =E2=87=92 foo > #+end_src >=20 > but explicitly documented in (info "(elisp) Dotted Pair Notation") as wel= l: > #+begin_quote > As a somewhat peculiar side effect of =E2=80=98(a b . c)=E2=80=99 and = =E2=80=98(a . (b . c))=E2=80=99 > being equivalent, for consistency this means that if you replace =E2=80= =98b=E2=80=99 > here with the empty sequence, then it follows that =E2=80=98(a . c)=E2=80= =99 and =E2=80=98(a . ( > . c))=E2=80=99 are equivalent, too. This also means that =E2=80=98( . c)= =E2=80=99 is equivalent > to =E2=80=98c=E2=80=99, but this is seldom used. > #+end_quote You seem to be somewhat upset, but I don't quite understand what your gripe is. Is it the (define (...) ...) shorthand function definition in Guile? Is it Guile's incompatibility with Emacs Lisp (no wonder: the first is a Scheme, the second a Lisp: they are related, but pretty different)? Could you explain a bit better? Cheers --=20 t --4AMdDnkRWwHBnd4C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCZFh7QQAKCRAFyCz1etHa RlHDAJ9KQroe9yAA9WN9UTzf3asK/st+PQCePLpAwfvTsG8KetmjgOff6YT6+uU= =7uXv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --4AMdDnkRWwHBnd4C--