[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Mutable Pairs
On 06/14/10 08:32, David Rush wrote:
> But *why* lump mutable data together with something as
> fundamental as pairs? Where's the "jewel-like"ness of that?
> Because Scheme allows mutability as a top-level entity without reference
> to a state monad. Its a foundational part of the design space.
> If anything, this lumping *is* -- IMO -- an "attack on the core
> nature of
> Haskell is over -> there.
I think Eli's point is being overextend here... he's not arguing for
making Scheme a pure language (he has spoken highly of mutable cells,
vectors, structures and set!), just for not making pairs mutable by default.
Perhaps I can summarise his argument ('tho he's welcome to tell me I
misrepresent him!) as "Let's make mutability more explicit, so that only
things we have requested mutability for can be mutated, to reduce the
chances of unexpected accidental mutation"?
That's a reasonable thing to discuss, even if we don't do it.
But, ah, can everyone please be a bit less emotive and "personal" about
this issue? Nobody's out to destroy Scheme here (unless we have
UNDERGROUND AGENTS from the RUBY/PERL/JAVA/PHP/INSERT-ENEMY-HERE
COMMUNITY! ;-) - just throwing out ideas on what might be best for it.
I, for one, take pains to suggest ideas that I think should be examined
by the community, even if I don't necessarily agree with them myself,
since I think that greater minds than I might come up with something
good from them. I'd hate to be the recipient of some of the language
I've seen here because of this!
Scheme-reports mailing list