(Minor quibble: these variables aren't dynamical scope but dynamically extent. That is, you are setting up a temporary assignment not a scope.)
I don't think Neil is questioning the need for sharing. I think he's arguing that we should organize the huge wealth of sharing that already exists. I will say that I understand both perspectives, and I haven't made up my mind. Well I have but following PLT policy I shouldn't publicly state it because I am not willing to volunteer :-). So here it goes: I think we should have a wiki that is supervised by a (strict, human) editor The editor will have to figure out how people can easily find the relevant information among thousands of hints. On Apr 24, 2012, at 11:36 PM, Galler wrote: > Neil, > > Let me respond to your argument with a specific question. > > Below is some code that sets up fluid-like dynamic variable bindings using > Jay's > web-cells. > > I haven't put this code up on GitHub (or elsewhere) > > (define/contract (make-dyno-bindings ids) > (-> (listof symbol?) (listof (cons/c symbol? web-cell?))) > (map (λ (id) (cons id (make-web-cell null))) ids)) > > (with-continuation-mark 'globals (make-dyno-bindings bindings) > ((lambda () ..... > > Variables are scoped both dynamically and by Jay's send/suspend primitive. > > Effectively, this results in per-client, dynamically scoped variables. > > Perhaps this is a super-dumb idea, but, if so, its a super-dumb idea that > could > only be implemented in Racket. > > Where does the code go to get users looking at (and hopefully talking) about > the > super-dumb idea? > > As I've written to Robby, I don't think the problem is too many people > implementing bad Scheme using Racket. I think the problem is not enough people > implementing the post-Flatt, Yu, Findler and Felleisen et. al language. > > R./ > Zack > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
