[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> For `current-reader' I think we should stick as we are.
>
> Then, should we go ahead and remove the `current-module' and
> `set-current-module' procedures in favor of `current-module' as a fluid?
> By not exporting the fluid directly, my original patch kept away from
> such a highly controversial debate. ;-)
:-) If we were starting from a clean slate, then yes, I'd agree. But
starting from where we are now, I don't think it's worth changing what
already exists.
Note BTW that both current-module and current-reader are
Guile-specific. For implementing something not Guile-specific, we
should also take into account portability of the chosen syntax; but
for these cases we don't need to.
(Sudden confusion: Are fluids part of R5RS? If so, why do we need the
parameters SRFI? I guess I need to go and reread it.)
> The "principle of least surprise" _is_ important for people coming to
> the language/implementation.
Yes, but as ever there are other principles too, in this case back
compatibility and simplicity.
Neil
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
