[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: More functions accepting strings and symbols

From: thi
Subject: Re: More functions accepting strings and symbols
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:28:03 -0700

   From: Jim Blandy <address@hidden>
   Date: 11 Oct 2000 16:42:57 -0500

   Well, now, why don't you tell us about what you're using it for?  :)

   Guile's behavior in this area isn't R4RS, and it strikes a number of
   us as being odd design.  Of course, that's not the best reason to
   break people's code and piss them off.  But if you want us to continue
   to support this, you need to explain why it's the Right Thing.

to be more exact, i often use symbols in the place of (read-only)
strings, and never vice-versa.  i like, for example, adding to
`%load-path' by doing something like:

  (for-each add-to-load-path '(/some/dir /some/other/dir))

using explicit strings adds many (IMHO) needless characters to the form.
i think i would be happy if procedures that expect strings continue to
also take symbols, and don't really care whether or not procedures that
expect symbols continue to take strings.

in any case, sorry for the angst; that's the sound of this loophole
programmer losing slack.  i realize that generally R*RS compliance is a
Good Thing.


reply via email to

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