> From: Taylor R Campbell <campb...@mumble.net> > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:57:29 +0000 > > [...] > This is another fluid compatibility issue -- in Git, FLUID-LET as > temporary shallow-binding of global variables has largely been > replaced by local deep-binding of objects called fluids, but nobody > has made an effort to maintain any semblance of compatibility (yet).
Would a "semblance" of compatibility resemble adding new bindings named e.g. $flonum-unparser-cutoff (a Scheme48 naming convention) and removing the old ones (e.g. flonum-unparser-cutoff)? We would at least get better errors -- about the FLUID-LET and not about internal procedures stumbling over a fluid object. More compatibility than that will be elusive. When I proposed this incompatibility, I asked for alternatives. All I remember was encouragement to "bite the bullet". Are we having second thoughts now? > From: Taylor R Campbell <campb...@mumble.net> > Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:49:09 +0000 > > Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:00:54 -0700 > From: Matt Birkholz <p...@birchwood-abbey.net> > > If we want SMP(?) and don't want it in a distant fork, we might just > bite the bullet and replace our fluid bindings with fluid objects > (like e.g. s48's). [...] > > That's what I have been intending to do for ages. For large sets of > fluids like the compiler uses, we could merge them into one fluid with > a large data structure. > From: Chris Hanson <c...@chris-hanson.org> > Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:40:01 -0800 > > R7RS defines parameters, which we'll eventually need to implement > anyway for compliance. Converting the system's bindings over to > parameters is probably the right thing for a variety of reasons. _______________________________________________ MIT-Scheme-users mailing list MIT-Scheme-users@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/mit-scheme-users
