[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: (#439) quasiquote changes
From: |
Thomas Chust |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: (#439) quasiquote changes |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:57:53 +0100 |
2010/12/10 John Cowan <address@hidden>:
> Thomas Chust scripsit:
>
>> to me the analogy seems quite well chosen. By the way, sometimes I
>> actually wonder whether splicing behaviour of multiple values in an
>> argument list wouldn't be a good idea, but I'm unsure.
>
> It's a Really Bad Idea, because it makes it impossible, for example, to
> report (cons (x)) as a compile-time error (too few arguments). After
> all, what if x returns two values?
Hello John,
few Scheme compilers would report (cons (x)) as a compile time error
for lack of static type information.
Obviously, if enough static type information was present, it would be
easy to check whether (x) actually returned exactly two values and
(cons (x)) was valid.
So yes, splicing return values is probably a better idea in a language
more strongly typed than traditional Scheme.
Ciao,
Thomas
--
When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb.
- [Chicken-hackers] CR: (#439) quasiquote changes, Peter Bex, 2010/12/07
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: (#439) quasiquote changes, Peter Bex, 2010/12/08
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: (#439) quasiquote changes, Thomas Chust, 2010/12/10
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: (#439) quasiquote changes, Felix, 2010/12/10
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: (#439) quasiquote changes, John Cowan, 2010/12/10
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: (#439) quasiquote changes, Christian Kellermann, 2010/12/10
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: (#439) quasiquote changes,
Thomas Chust <=
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: (#439) quasiquote changes, John Cowan, 2010/12/10
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: (#439) quasiquote changes, Alaric Snell-Pym, 2010/12/11