On 2021-06-05 14:05 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote: > Wolfgang, what do you think? We should get it right with SRFI 224 first > (before it is finalized) and then we can correct SRFI 113 and 146 (am I > missing another relevant SRFI) ex post facto.
Marc, thanks to you and Shiro for all of the interesting discussion. I'm not sure I understand the proposed solution, or the exact meanings of the terms "persistent" and "transient" in this context. Before changing the semantics of SRFI 224, I'd like to make sure I'm clear on what we're suggesting, and how it will impact interactions with other Scheme libraries. Would all functional procedures now be specified to return a persistent value, while -! forms would be required to take transient values? If I understand correctly, the core of the problem is that the expectation that "you, the programmer, know there are no other live references to the value passed to the procedure" is unreasonable, unless the library provides guarantees or adheres rigidly to the (awful) "always copy everything" protocol. (Please correct that if I've misunderstood.) -- Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <[email protected]> "In the military more is not better." --_Sun Tzu_
