Re: [Chicken-users] Functions with lots of parameters

[Alejandro Forero Cuervo]

> You could capture its value (not the parameter itself) inside the
> delayed function, though.

This, having to capture the value of parameters before the lazy
evaluation, would entirely defeat the purpose of using parameters IN
MY SITUATION, which is being able to avoid specifying all the function
arguments.

> Actually, you don't.  The appearance of the PARAMETERIZE macro is
> deceiving.  The "i" in
> 
>       (parameterize ((i 10)) ...)
> 
> is not restricted to being a simple variable name, as in the comparable
> LET special form.  It can be any expression whatever that evaluates to
> a parameter object; specifically, it can be a call on a procedure that
> returns the desired parameter object.

Similarly, this would entirely defeat the purpose of using parameters
IN MY SITUATION, since the functions called from the body of the
parameterize would still need some way to get the parameter objects.

In consequence, I don't think parameters are useful at all in the
situation I originally described.  Even alternatives such as using
structures (records), which I discarded for reasons I already
explained, would be better than parameters IN THE SITUATION I
DESCRIBED.

I do appreciate your thoughts on this problem, but I think it would be
benefical of you to re read my original message to understand the
actual problem I'm trying to solve (and why parameters are a very
lousy solution).

Thanks, John.

Alejo.
http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/