Re: New egg: CHICKEN Transducers

[Chris Brannon]

Jeremy Steward <jeremy@thatgeoguy.ca> writes:

> 2. Macro-based: This makes it pretty difficult to extend, especially
> if you don't have a clear "standard" or "winning" data structure that
> the community can rely on. Not that it's impossible, but I'd have an
> easier time as a user writing a custom fold procedure (and maybe a
> collect?) and working with transducers than extending eager
> comprehension macros to support new types.

I was reading through the transducers documentation today when this
jumped out at me.
"The fantastic thing about transducers is that they can be very easily
composed together."
Not to mention curried, partially-applied, and all the lovely
higher-order things Scheme makes possible.
I'm pretty much sold.

> 3. Aesthetics: related to syntax / macro based solutions, I have
> strongly religious (read that as: entirely subjective) reasons to
> prefer to keep my Scheme code mostly syntax free.

I get that.  Some really amazing things can be done with syntax, but
procedures are really the most fundamental building block.  Macros can
be, at least for me, devilishly difficult to debug.

-- Chris