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

Re: disjointness of '() and #f

>>     Jinx, if you can explain to my simple self why you cannot redefine a
>>     scheme implementation which follows the standard to do what you want in
>>     this case, please do so.  If not, I request that you remove your
>>     objections.
>> You can obviously do the same yourself by redefining all list
>> operations.  The situation is symmetric.  
>> I don't want to force you to make them eq?  I just don't want you to
>> force me to make them distinct.

I would rather have them distinct by default and force you (personally)
to make them otherwise than force a large number of explanations on a
large number of people.  Forcing portable code which wants distinctness
to redefine all list operations is not reasonable in this context.

>> I thought we had stopped arguing about this one a while ago.  Please
>> let things be.

If I were arguing for myself, this would be one thing.  I am trying to
presuade you to remove your objection because of the large number of
people who are going to be bitten by this and the (I suspect hundreds of)
wasted man-hours this lack of distinction is going to cause.  Proper
educational presentation can help, but the history is that (eq? #f '())
--> #t creates a real (objective) problem.

The simple solution is to avoid the problem.  I have not yet heard other
than personal preference.  [Perhaps I need to listen harder; perhaps you
need to talk louder].