[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] Keywords
From: |
Joe Marshall |
Subject: |
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] Keywords |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:40:20 -0700 |
>> From: Taylor R Campbell <address@hidden>
>> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:23:51 -0400
>>
>> What advantage does a disjoint data type have over writing (foo 'bar:
>> baz 'quux: zot)?
I'm writing up a rationale.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Matt Birkholz
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> I am just hoping this is for SRFI support,
Not *solely* for SRFI support, but there's no reason to
disavow credit.
> not something we would use in our own system...
I don't think I'd impose this on anyone else. I have an
interesting use-case in mind, but I'm not about to start
adding them willy-nilly to the existing code base.
> or is this NOT the "Old School" Scheme congregation? (Ummm... :-)?
I certainly consider myself part of the `Old School'. (Despite accusations!)
>
> Can I write
>
> (make-sumpn 'color "red")
>
> as well as
>
> (make-sumpn :color "red")
>
> (make-sumpn color: "red")
>
> and
>
> (make-sumpn :color: "red")
>
> Sorry. Not the last one? ?
Ok, I'll fix that.
--
~jrm
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] Keywords, Taylor R Campbell, 2010/03/16
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] Keywords, Joe Marshall, 2010/03/19