Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!news.mathworks.com!udel!princeton!news.princeton.edu!blume
From: blume@dynamic.cs.princeton.edu (Matthias Blume)
Subject: Re: declare ?
In-Reply-To: girardot@cambur.emse.FR's message of 23 Nov 1994 09:47:17 -0500
Message-ID: <BLUME.94Nov23102210@dynamic.cs.princeton.edu>
Originator: news@hedgehog.Princeton.EDU
Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: dynamic.cs.princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
References: <9411231442.AA22922@cambur.emse.fr>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 15:22:10 GMT
Lines: 33

In article <9411231442.AA22922@cambur.emse.fr> girardot@cambur.emse.FR (Jean-Jacques Girardot) writes:

   Michael R. Blair" <ziggy@biere.ai.mit.edu>
   in <ZIGGY.94Nov22132748@biere.ai.mit.edu>
   writes :

   > [ descrition of MIT-Scheme's DECLARE ]

   I do agree with this.

   [ GLisp timing example ]

I do not agree with this.
Could we finally get over this dreaded practice of adding ad-hoc
solutions to problems, which do not even need to be problems?!
(``Module system'' -- does this ring a bell?)

   For a "real" R4RS, use (declare no-integration), but
   pay the price.

I wouldn't insist on R4RS conformance if we could finally agree on
something better (that is: on a better language).

   In practice, you can put the appropriate (declare ...)
   forms around the definition of some function if you know
   that some primitive will be redefined.

Oh yeah -- in practice you can also code the program in C or even in
machine language, or you could drill a hole in your knee and pour milk
into it... <g>

--
-Matthias
