Re: message primitive

["Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>]

Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:

> "Greg J. Badros" <gjb@cs.washington.edu> writes:
> 
> > Should it be prefixed with %?  I.e., %simple-format? 
> 
> (Sorry, missed this question.)
> 
> Generally, I think it is a good idea to ask the question: Is this a
> feature which we want to include in the Guile language?  Would a new
> Guile user be happy when we sees this primitive?  Would Shriram be
> happy?
> 
> If the answer is no, we don't include it at all.  If the answer is
> yes, we included fully, i.e., with some sensible name.  I actually
> would very much like to extinguish all %-names.

I think we should as it is a useful procedure that lots of people either
re-implement or hack around to get something similar -- I bet it meets
both of your tests, as well, though we can certainly ask Shriram if
you're really that concerned about his view.  It's definitely something
that I'd've been really happy to see for use in Scwm, and it being
missing has caused all sorts of work-arounds by the various
different contributors to Scwm.

> (Not that I've lived up to this policy myself through the years. :)

I'm fine w/ no leading %, but was just considered about R[45]RS
compatiblity/portability issues.

Greg