On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Grant Rettke <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Alex Shinn <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Jussi Piitulainen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Do all these need to remain in the language? In (scheme base)? >> >> We should put them somewhere for compatibility, but >> I definitely think everything but the one and two depth >> combinations should be removed from (scheme base). >> Their use is generally a code smell. People should >> use destructuring, records, or SRFI-1 first..tenth accessors. > > Is this a case where common practice among Scheme implementation is > the functions are no longer valued so they are going away?
No, this is a case where the use of those procedures is almost universally a bad idea, and it takes up space in what's supposed to be a "small" language. I've used those procedures myself, and *every* single time it has been a mistake. I'd rather they go away so I'm not tempted, and am forced to properly abstract from the start. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
