Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!psuvax1!news.ecn.bgu.edu!siemens!princeton!news.princeton.edu!blume
From: blume@dynamic.cs.princeton.edu (Matthias Blume)
Subject: Re: declare ?
In-Reply-To: blume@dynamic.cs.princeton.edu's message of Wed, 23 Nov 1994 15:22:10 GMT
Message-ID: <BLUME.94Nov25124642@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>
	<BLUME.94Nov23102210@dynamic.cs.princeton.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1994 17:46:42 GMT
Lines: 34

In article <BLUME.94Nov23102210@dynamic.cs.princeton.edu> I (Matthias Blume) wrote:

   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.

[ My answer to this was probably rather inappropriate and rude, which
  is why I retracted my previous article... ]

--
-Matthias
