On Sat, 9 Aug 2008, John Cowan wrote:
Kon Lovett scripsit:
I guess I just prefer social rather than legal prescriptions.
Prohibition is an attack on symptoms not causes.
Why have we eliminated dynamic binding of lambda variables? Why
don't we allow you to take the car or cdr of (), or of
Elf scripsit:
you cant take the car or cdr of an atomic object: the slots dont exist.
And yet in CL and all the way back to Lisp 1.5, (car nil) = (cdr nil) = nil.
In pre-CL Lisps, the CDR of a symbol was its property list; CL finally
abolished that.
these arent relevant comparisons. more
Am Sonntag, den 10.08.2008, 10:38 -0400 schrieb John Cowan:
a more relevant comparison (and answer) might be 'why don't we get
rid of 'kill -9'?'
...
(except by debuggers that need to freeze threads so
it can inspect their contents, something Scheme doesn't support):
That's what I think:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, John Cowan wrote:
Elf scripsit:
you cant take the car or cdr of an atomic object: the slots dont exist.
And yet in CL and all the way back to Lisp 1.5, (car nil) = (cdr nil) = nil.
In pre-CL Lisps, the CDR of a symbol was its property list; CL finally
abolished that.
Kon Lovett scripsit:
I guess I just prefer social rather than legal prescriptions.
Prohibition is an attack on symptoms not causes.
Why have we eliminated dynamic binding of lambda variables? Why
don't we allow you to take the car or cdr of (), or of a symbol?
Why are uncontrolled
Am Freitag, den 08.08.2008, 19:32 -0700 schrieb Vincent Manis:
So, I'd say, `we're protecting that large group of programmers whom we
would like to persuade that Chicken is a Good Thing'.
Would we really?
If the postulated programmer had just found mygreatprogram on the net
and want's to run
On 2008-Aug-9, at 04:23, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
If the postulated programmer had just found mygreatprogram on the net
and want's to run it, is it a good thing for said programmer to find
chicken unable to run it until a patch is applied?
And what mygreatprogram is written in R6RS
My 2 cents.
The SRFI document is clear about the danger. The Chicken mail archive
is clear about the danger. Standards Practices is clear about the
danger.
Who are we protecting?
Best Wishes,
Kon
___
Chicken-users mailing list
On 2008-Aug-8, at 16:30, Kon Lovett wrote:
My 2 cents.
The SRFI document is clear about the danger. The Chicken mail
archive is clear about the danger. Standards Practices is clear
about the danger.
Who are we protecting?
Well, I spent several years teaching concurrency (along with
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008, Vincent Manis wrote:
My preference is the same as John Cowan's: kill it. If not, put warnings in
the manual. I don''t find SRFI-18's warning (in the paragraph headed NOTE:)
strong enough, as it uses the phrase `may be a problem', not `is virtually
guaranteed to be a
Hi Folks,
One more controversy ;-)
I guess I just prefer social rather than legal prescriptions.
Prohibition is an attack on symptoms not causes.
Sadly we have a philosophical issue here. I am not for the general use
of unsafe operations but against proscription.
I commiserate with
11 matches
Mail list logo
