Arne wrote:
Indeed, Scheme doesn't have a clear separation between full-featured
RnRS implementations and subset implementation. Several people have
noted that this is confusing.
Maybe the r7rs-benchmark preludes and postludes could be a start for
documentation of that?
https://github.com/ecr
MSavoritias writes:
>> I actually liked that name — and still like it. Keep in mind that being
>> professional quality doesn’t require being teflon-proof naming. Python
>> includes `import this` and `import antigravity`. Because exposing ones
>> humanity isn’t a problem.
>
> Just a note here, I a
> > With no disrespect intended -- I understand it's a joke that was funny
> > at one time -- "the standard library of Guile is called ice-9" sounds
> > like "the unit of mass is called footballs". If so, why would a smart
> > newbie learn more?
>
>
> I did.
>
> Did you not?
yeah, because guix
MSavoritias writes:
> Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide kirjoitti 20.7.2024 klo 17.52:
>> Lassi Kortela writes:
It would be easy to state in more places "the standard library of guile
is called ice-9 (see [history])".
>>> With no disrespect intended -- I understand it's a joke that was funny
>
Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide kirjoitti 20.7.2024 klo 17.52:
Lassi Kortela writes:
It would be easy to state in more places "the standard library of guile
is called ice-9 (see [history])".
With no disrespect intended -- I understand it's a joke that was funny
at one time -- "the standard librar
Lassi Kortela writes:
>>> That said, I think that in Scheme, standard is quite different from
>>> portable – if something standard is implemented, it will be (mostly)
>>> according
>>> to the standard, so in this way it is ‘portable’, but that’s a big ‘if’.
>>> For large Schemes (and small Sch
>> Why wouldn’t this smart newbie learn more?
>Many things are competing for his time.
That’s always the case. What I meant was, what reason would this smart newbie
have to not learn more that has to do with the statement “the standard library
of Guile is name ice-9”?
> I mean, in an alternate
That said, I think that in Scheme, standard is quite different from portable –
if something standard is implemented, it will be (mostly) according
to the standard, so in this way it is ‘portable’, but that’s a big ‘if’. For
large Schemes (and small Schemes for which the RnRS or SRFI stuff is
imp
>Is (import (srfi :N)) portable in practice?
I don’t know. I know that (srfi srfi-N) isn’t portable, but I don’t know what
_is_ portable. I don’t know if ‘(import ...)’ is standard either (sure it is
as part of ‘define-library’, but I didn’t find it on its own in r7rs.pdf),
That said, at leas
Maxime Devos writes:
> That said, I think that in Scheme, standard is quite different from portable
> – if something standard is implemented, it will be (mostly) according
> to the standard, so in this way it is ‘portable’, but that’s a big ‘if’. For
> large Schemes (and small Schemes for which
Why wouldn’t this smart newbie learn more?
Many things are competing for his time.
I mean, in an alternate
universe, the CIPM and or their predecessors might have liked soccer
(cf. Ice-9) very much and called the unit of mass the ‘football’ instead
of the ‘(kilo)gram’. In that universe, “the
>Is anything except for (srfi ...) and (rnrs ...) expected to be
portable? I thought till now that if I want my code portable, an easy
way would be to restrict my imports to these.
>What else is there that actually is portable, despite not being in
these?
Maybe (scheme ...) is portable as well (i
>> It would be easy to state in more places "the standard library of guile
>> is called ice-9 (see [history])".
>With no disrespect intended -- I understand it's a joke that was funny
at one time -- "the standard library of Guile is called ice-9" sounds
like "the unit of mass is called footballs
Why not move (language xyz) into (guile language xyz) as well?
+1
I’m not sure about all the top-level module thingies though, sometimes
other implementations implement the same thing too. For example, Racket
has an SXML implementation. If the API is compatible (and located under
the same mo
Lassi Kortela writes:
>> But on the topic of (guile ...) as name: I’m not sure whether (guile
>> ...) is better. Because what then is (language ...)? What are (oop ...)
>> (sxml ...) and (web ...)?
>> Should all of these move into (guile ...)?
>
> IMHO they should move under (guile ...). Other Sc
>But on the topic of (guile ...) as name: I’m not sure whether (guile
...) is better. Because what then is (language ...)? What are (oop ...)
(sxml ...) and (web ...)?
>Should all of these move into (guile ...)? Or should we provide the
modules without prefix? What should then actually move into (
If so, why would a smart newbie learn more?
I did.
Did you not?
As a committed schemer, I forgive almost any obstacle.
I actually liked that name — and still like it. Keep in mind that being
professional quality doesn’t require being teflon-proof naming. Python
includes `import this` and `
Lassi Kortela writes:
>> It would be easy to state in more places "the standard library of guile
>> is called ice-9 (see [history])".
>
> With no disrespect intended -- I understand it's a joke that was funny
> at one time -- "the standard library of Guile is called ice-9" sounds
> like "the unit
18 matches
Mail list logo
