Re: Dylan stuff

One point is that the language itself provides a mechanism for
supporting and experimenting with dialects. You can easily define a
module, say, 'dylan2013' which imports everything from the 'dylan'
module unchanged *except* the function definition syntax, and defines
its own version of that.

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Dustin Voss <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2013, at 3:17 PM, mikel evins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That raises another question: to what degree should Dylan hackers regard the language design as malleable? To whom does its definition belong nowadays? Is there a "Dylan Request for Implementation" process? Should there be?
>
> We have a process, documented at http://opendylan.org/proposals/index.html. And no one BUT us uses it, so we could consider it pretty malleable.
>
> However, I don’t like changing much in the language. It is pretty well-designed, and I don’t think we could do a better job of considering implications than the original designers.
>
> There are flaws. For example, <character> and its methods are poorly done, and limited collection types should include default fill: values and more introspection. But the fundamentals are sane, sound, and consistent.
> _______________________________________________
> hackers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.opendylan.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers
_______________________________________________
hackers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opendylan.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers