Re: Keyword type?

Tom Lord <lord-1tv/[email protected]> writes:

>     > From: Andreas Rottmann <[email protected]>
>
>     > Once strings and symbols are in place, what about providing a keyword
>     > type such as many popular Schemes do? 
>
> Yes.
>
[snip]

> So, as an argument-passing mechanism, keywords don't fit quite
> perfectly into Scheme.   Bummer.
>
> Nevertheless, self-evaluating atomic values which have a
> human-readable name are intrinsicly useful.   Programmers can avoid
> the ambiguities mentioned above just by not using them for anything
> that would conflict with their use as keyword-argument markers.
>
> So, yes, I'd like them.
>
> (How do you feel about :foo instead of #:foo?  It violates R5RS, I
> guess, but -- in any way that is likely to really matter?)
>
We could do it like Guile and make the :foo syntax a reader extension
that can be optionally enabled. There might be programs that count on
names starting with ':' being identifiers.

Andy
-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | [email protected]      | [email protected] | [email protected]
http://yi.org/rotty      | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

To iterate is human; to recurse, divine.