This is the mail archive of the email@example.com mailing list for the guile project.
|Index Nav:||[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]|
|Message Nav:||[Date Prev] [Date Next]||[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
>> I believe it is should be "dynamic" (i.e. setter evalues PROC at >> run-time), and that is what I have implemented. Of course, if you >> allow the compiler to inline or statically resolve some procedures, >> then you can also inline or statically resolve the call to setter. > >I don't like the idea of extending Scheme with the new mechanism of a >binding between procedure objects. Of course you could look upon it >as a simple table lookup, but it is not good to encourage people to >use such a mechism for the elementary operation of storing a value in >a location. The thing is though, Scheme is already doing dynamic things with certain objects. Things as basic as equal?, "+", write and display are dynamically dispatched according to type. I can only see extending this concept to set! as making the language smaller conceptually as well as more consistent. When one primitive can be used with any possible type, I think language bloat is reduced. I only wish other things were dynamic according to type too, like map and for-each, so you could map vectors and other things.