[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Libraries and repositories
Michael Vanier wrote:
> You don't like define-syntax, syntax-rules, syntax-case et. al.?
Paul's talking about "the standard", which presumably means R5RS.
Perhaps you don't know this, but macros have been in discussion by the
Scheme committees for over a decade. Why? Because two different
groups each felt they had The Right Thing -- and those happened to be
different Right Things. It's bad enough to be held up because you
can't find one; it's much worse when you get held up because you did
find two. (-:
You blithely mention SYNTAX-CASE. Yet SYNTAX-CASE (which I swear by)
isn't in the standard; the considerably older and more hobbled (fine
for its time, but superceded by SYNTAX-CASE) SYNTAX-RULES is.
> I don't think there's anything in the
> standard prohibiting defmacro-style macros, and most schemes seem to offer
As the various other voices on this list have said (in various ways),
the problem isn't what the standards allow -- it's what they include.
Neither does the standard prohibit networking -- except each
implementation has a different networking library. Standards are only
as useful as the most useful entities they help you construct. The
Scheme standards help you construct immensely useful and intricate
algorithmic descriptions; they don't help you structure programs or
parse SMTP headers.
Fortunately, the Scheme standardization process seems to effectively
be dead, so we needn't wait Godot-like for the proclamations of R6RS.