Re: [Chicken-users] More informative names to srfi units - request from a long-term neophyte

[Arthur Maciel]

John, indeed this is not my point. Felix mentioned heart bleeding about self-evaluating vector on r7rs-tasks page (https://wiki.call-cc.org/r7rs-tasks). My intention was to stress out that not only conceptual issues create dissatisfaction, but the very fact that chicken great developers can't use chicken on their jobs. Personally I don't have a point whether vector should be self-evaluating or not. It was just a reference to extrapolate to another subject. Sorry for the confusion.

2013/4/9 John Cowan <address@hidden>

Arthur Maciel scripsit:

> my heart bleeds not only for self-evaluating vectors in R7RS,

What is it with this?  Strings are self-evaluating, why shouldn't vectors
be?  In R6RS, bytevectors are self-evaluating because they're thought of
as a variant on strings, but vectors still aren't.  I requested it for
R6RS in a Formal Comment, but got this: "Generally, Scheme has often
favored uniformity over succinctness, which is also why vector datums
are not literals."  What uniformity?  There is nothing uniform about
what's self-evaluating and what is not.

What's more, dialects differ, but nobody uses vector literals as a kind of
syntax.  Currently Racket, Gauche, MIT, Guile, Kawa, Chibi, SCM, STklos,
Scheme 9, Scheme 7, UMB, VX, Oaklisp treat vectors as self-quoting.
Gambit, Chicken, Bigloo, Scheme48/scsh, SISC, Ikarus, Larceny, Ypsilon,
IronScheme, Mosh, KSi, SigScheme, Elk treat unquoted vectors as errors.
Those are the only possibilities that actually exist.

In R7RS, everything is self-evaluating except symbols and lists.
Very simple and easy to remember.  Yet people complain.

Is it just that Common Lisp makes everything self-evaluating and we're
supposed to be an Uncommon Lisp?

Grasshopper seeks enlightenment ....

--
John Cowan  address@hidden  http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves.
        --Murray Gell-Mann