[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
comments on draft IEEE std
I also favor using a boolean in place of a symbol as the third argument
in (string->number STRING RADIX EXACTNESS). Not only are there only two
possible values, but I think this would be the only standard procedure
to perform a case dispatch on a symbol.
I am uncomfortable with the proposed WITH-INPUT-FROM-PORT and
WITH-OUTPUT-TO-PORT procedures. One reason the R3RS did not specify a way
to change the default ports is that some people do not want them to be
changable. Furthermore the implementation-dependent behavior of these
new procedures is a serious problem because they muck with a global
resource: the default ports. The implementation-dependent behavior of
CALL-WITH-INPUT-FILE and CALL-WITH-OUTPUT-FILE is better isolated and
therefore less troublesome.
I'd like to see backquote in the IEEE standard, but I'm worried about
not having a good specification of its semantics. Jonathan's code is great
but too specific. Maybe the code could go in a non-binding appendix?
I think the => syntax of `cond' is a good example of the kind of thing that
can go in the Report but should stay out of the IEEE standard.
One person's random opinions. Peace, Will