From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: A bit further toward the flamewar Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:44:26 +0200 Message-ID: <87obxiprth.fsf@pobox.com> References: <20111012153958.GA20242@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> <87pqi2ca3q.fsf@gnu.org> <8739exry15.fsf@pobox.com> <20111013112709.GA28078@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> <87r52hc6hu.fsf@gnu.org> <87r52grk90.fsf@pobox.com> <1318531070.78010.YahooMailNeo@web37908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1318839601 20240 80.91.229.12 (17 Oct 2011 08:20:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:20:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "guile-user@gnu.org" , Ian Price To: linasvepstas@gmail.com Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 17 10:19:55 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RFiQI-0006Wu-Iq for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:19:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48798 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RFiQH-0000mT-G0 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 04:19:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51494) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RFiQA-0000mB-FC for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 04:19:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RFiQ9-0008IC-A4 for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 04:19:42 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:61094 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RFiQ9-0008Hx-7b for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 04:19:41 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEFF670E7; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 04:19:39 -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; s=sasl; bh=zWgdqKx4efIyJp+T1RKFQVDWNdo=; b=ZFG/pa WdXcyDIpwY5MzvKF2GmeaL8JHZK9DQVuKWjA8blHU3cFKrUtSmKv4rRdCe6+3rNk rLH8nzGflatQs5H3rFrP5Zmq4jg8BlGvPEmI9UXfvFLwBoBHX5drZLdcBXaaK0a8 9b4ZfMvzO6o4s0CnLy+2tUMNbfZMYoZwCWyHw= 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; q=dns; s=sasl; b=qDCtXPQo2EH4A3Vnam0HWux8XZaPB0k5 gyvOB9ZB8Waj8y47f7fhbbb3UN48tfWQ81hAJ35wAuomq5fja+LFtGZqS2ujEA+u vGuyMbQLX/YpbkLg6FVSICJNzdYk0Nx1zltvuYJGiDJ27IR2TNyAC+QbkKeNaxoq KBR0Gxmnc0I= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A66C070E6; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 04:19:39 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2511F70E5; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 04:19:39 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Linas Vepstas's message of "Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:23:26 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C1E6EB2A-F898-11E0-92FF-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:8896 Archived-At: On Fri 14 Oct 2011 18:23, Linas Vepstas writes: > 2) Flame-war. > > In the spirit of 2), Whee! (I generally avoid flamewars, but this one has not caught fire yet :) > So the proposal is: (shout me down, when ready): create a new srfi, > defining an ML-like conception of types, so that scheme functions can > be annotated with types. I suggest instead taking a look at Typed Racket, from the PLT folks. They have done a lot of good thinking there. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/