On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 12:51 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <
marc.nie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Chez Scheme's "with" is only used in a deprecated macro facility
> ("extend-syntax"). I think, at least for the purpose of Chez, it is
> safe to reuse the identifier.
>
> The identifier "with" is undoubtedly quite general, but so are "let"
> or "receive". I would be glad if "parameterize" had a shorter or less
> complicated name.
>
I see. Actually, if 'with' is used for dynamic binding (current srfi-226's
parameterize), it is a reasonable name compared with let.
In srfi-226, however, I got an impression that 'parameterize' is given to
the true dynamic bindings, while 'with' is a kind of pseudo mechanism,
mostly to accommodate the existing code that uses parameter-like objects in
place of parameters. Yet, it has a shorter name and encourages users to
use it over 'parameterize'.
I thought it'd be ok before I noticed the subtle difference regarding
shift/reset. I'm for providing a dynamic-wind based mechanism for the
backward compatibility of legacy 'parameterize', but I'm afraid that naming
it 'with' gives an impression that it is a more general, higher-level
construct. (It is more general in a sense that it accepts parameter-like
objets, but the semantics differ.)
In other words: I'm going to tell Gauche users that the new 'parameterize'
is not compatible with legacy 'parameterize', it will work most of the time
but may behave differently in complicated cases; if you need a full
compatibility you have to replace 'parameterize' for 'with'. I'm afraid
that the users then think "ok, then I'm going to use 'with' for all dynamic
bindings without worrying about compatibility, and it has a shorter name so
it's even better." It's not desirable situation.
