[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Quoting vectors?

Pavel writes:
>I see no reason to force all Scheme programmers to write logically
>unnecessary quotes in order to allow this obscure and, to my knowledge,
>rarely if ever employed, avenue for experimentation.

It turns out that I defined and played with a parallel scheme that
used vectors instead of lists almost everywhere.

Another way of looking at this question is by counting the number of
rules required to figure out whether or not a quote is necessary.  I
personally favor required quotes on all data objects with strings and
numbers as special cases because of historical reasons (and '" looks
dumb).  This not only means that we can decide later how to determine
the value of something that currently only has a data syntax, but that
the rules for finding non-data, is it quoted, are quite simple.

Of course, one could argue that the opposite view, that quotation is a
hack to make up for the unfortunate fact that lists and symbols use
the same syntax as expressions and variables.  I don't like this
because it makes quasi-quote into another hack, and I don't think that
either quasi-quote or quote are hacks.  It also means that we're tied
into the current syntax for non-data and everything else is data,
which is a little more complicated than the current rule.

(BTW - I wonder if an individual's views on required quotes correlates
with their views on the truth values.)