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