Re: Using #true and #false everywhere?

[Bengt Richter <bokr@bokr.com>]

Hi,

On +2020-10-17 21:36:06 -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Hello Tobias,
> 
> Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> writes:
> 
> > Maxim,
> >
> > Maxim Cournoyer 写道：
> >> I'd only agree to such a change if it's already been standardized in
> >> the
> >> RnRS as such
> >
> > Sure, I think that's implied.  #true and #false are part of the
> > R7RS-small standard.
> 
> Thanks, I couldn't find where that was defined.  Now that you've pointed
> it to me, it's defined in section 6.3 Booleans:
> 
>    The standard boolean objects for true and false are written as #t and
>    #f. Alternatively, they can be written #true and #false,
>    respectively.
> 
> > I don't know what Guile ‘is’, but it supports that part of the
> > standard.  I don't think it implements any of the RnRS completely? 
> > I've heard it said that Guile targets R5RS, but that was ages ago.
> 
> info '(guile) Guile and Scheme' suggests it supports all of the R5RS,
> R6RS or R7RS standards, plus a bunch of srfi modules.
> 
> With this cleared, I don't have an objection to the proposal, other than
> the other points I've mentioned earlier (to recall those points: I don't
> perceive much value in it and it'll make the 'git blame' output noisy).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Maxim
> 

I am against editing legacy code to s/#t/#true/ and s/#f/#false/

For those who need it, why not an emacs mode to view whatever beautification they like?

Or a separate canonicalizer/prettyprinter filter that you could invoke by command line
or from any editor that can pipe thhrough filters?

ISTM any any editing of signed-off sources creates quality/security-control work for
developers who are too valuable to waste their time on non-fun.

Delegating such simple changes to newbie contributors doesn't avoid the oversight work
and potential security risk: a "whoops, that better be reverted" may open a door just
long enough for some exploitation -- or at least require the conscientious to think about
whether the whoops really could have been exploitable somehow.

I see a waste of developer time, that can be much better used.
My 2¢ :)

-- 
Regards,
Bengt Richter