2018-06-09 12:39 GMT+02:00 Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>:

>
> Catonano <catonano@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Assuming that users read academic articles about programming languages in
> > order to know your way aroung Guile is not reasonable
>
> I fail to see how this follows from Guile’s lack of a macro stepper.


Then you were not following

Mark indicated me a paper about the first macro stepper in history


> To
> be honest, I never even heard of a macro stepper before.


I haden't heard of it neither

I am following Mark's distinction, here, between a macro stepper and
macroexpand-1

I don't know if other schemes lack macroexpand-1 too but at this point it
wouldn't be relevant anymore


> And I have
> never felt the need to read computer science papers to “know my way
> around Guile”.  (I have not studied computer science, so it isn’t that
> my background allowed me to skip papers that are mandatory for other
> users of Guile.)
>
> The sentence above seems like an exaggeration to me.
>

Ok, thans for your contribution


> (I say this with no hostility, just with surprise.)
>

we have a loooong way to go



>
> > The monad accessing the daemon, how would I delve in it ?
>
> The Guix manual should explain it fully, while assuming that the concept
> of a monad is known (because that’s not a Guix or Guile invention).


And how would I know what a monad is without reading academic materials ?

Maybe Haskell is a requirement in order to use Guile//Guix ?

"assuming that the concept of a monad is known" is a problem.

Someone would want to _learn_ what a monad is AND how it can be implemented
in scheme, by dissecting this Guix macro based feature

Do you think that the code should be kept obscure and unaccessible ?

So much for the Emacs of distros