[plt-scheme] symbols redefined in SRFIs

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at barzilay.org)
Date: Mon Oct 23 21:33:04 EDT 2006

On Oct 24, Dan Muresan wrote:
> You're right, there are two issues, but I think there's no need to
> consider circularity separately.

I disagree.

> I've just messed up my DrScheme installation, but in SISC:
> #;> (require-extension (srfi 1))
> #;> (map + '(1 2) (circular-list 1 2))
> (2 4)
> It seems to me that SRFI-1 *guarantees* this result (right?).

(Right, and it does the same in PLT.  Your example of using a circular
list as one of the arguments does work, I replied too fast.)

> So, back to the case in point, the SRFI-1 rule "stop on shortest"
> can be more useful than the R5RS rule. Some people don't like this
> trick though...

Well, both sides have their pros and cons.  You can't just jump to a
different meaning for something as basic as `map' when you have 3788
uses of it to support.

          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!

Posted on the users mailing list.