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

Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] returning back to pattern matching

Vincent Manis scripsit:

> Absolutely no disagreement here. Pattern matching is extremely
> important, and I hope WG2 can come up with a clean set of pattern
> matching facilities. Having said that, I'm reluctant to change (as
> opposed to cleaning up specifications for) anything defined in R5RS
> (or in some cases R6RS). C.A.R. Hoare once said something to the effect
> that the absolute last place to do any language design is in preparing
> a standard. This has always struck me as very sensible.

I agree completely, and I do it only when I'm between a rock and a
hard place.  When the WG says there should be a library, and there is
no obvious de facto standard, or there is general agreement that the de
facto standard is unsatisfactory, then I have to put together something.
In that situation only, I try to make the something as good as I can
make it.

In any case, there is no suggestion of changing define, lambda, case, etc.
in the core library.  If you want pattern matching, import the match
library and then define, lambda, etc. will do what you want.  If you
want both side by side, then import the match library with a prefix.

Only do what only you can do.               John Cowan <cowan@x>
  --Edsger W. Dijkstra's advice
    to a student in search of a thesis

Scheme-reports mailing list