Bakul Shah scripsit: > If Scheme (cl)aims to be a high level language, it should leave > efficiency issues to implementations and use generic functions > where it makes sense.
Scheme is a monomorphic language with two exceptions: trivial parametric polymorphism around its "obj" type (for example, the contents of a list or vector can be an object), and ad hoc polymorphism of the numeric procedures around exact and inexact numbes. (There is further ad hoc numeric polymorphism for many implementations, but there are Schemes with only a single representation for exact numbers.) If you want Common Lisp, Haskell, or Scala, you know where to find them. > Note that a CL style LOOP macro, as Alex suggests, while more > powerful can make compositions uglier (or harder) or "inside > out". There is also SRFI 42, which I personally prefer to loop macros. There will likely be a bonny fight on the subject in WG2. -- And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic tenebrous ultimate gods --the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul is Nyarlathotep. (Lovecraft) John Cowan [email protected] _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
