[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] Keywords

From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] Keywords
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:40:20 -0700

>> From: Taylor R Campbell <address@hidden>
>> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:23:51 -0400
>> What advantage does a disjoint data type have over writing (foo 'bar:
>> baz 'quux: zot)?

I'm writing up a rationale.

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Matt Birkholz
<address@hidden> wrote:
> I am just hoping this is for SRFI support,

Not *solely* for SRFI support, but there's no reason to
disavow credit.

> not something we would use in our own system...

I don't think I'd impose this on anyone else.  I have an
interesting use-case in mind, but I'm not about to start
adding them willy-nilly to the existing code base.

> or is this NOT the "Old School" Scheme congregation?  (Ummm... :-)?

I certainly consider myself part of the `Old School'.  (Despite accusations!)

> Can I write
>    (make-sumpn 'color "red")
> as well as
>    (make-sumpn :color "red")
>    (make-sumpn color: "red")
> and
>    (make-sumpn :color: "red")
> Sorry.  Not the last one?  ?

Ok, I'll fix that.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]