[plt-scheme] Mutable and immutable pairs in PLT Scheme

From: Matthew Flatt (mflatt at cs.utah.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 26 12:01:43 EST 2008

At Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:44:56 -0500, hendrik at topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> > So, to help gauge usefulness for this potential action, I'll revise the
> > question:
> > 
> >  Does anyone actually use (and expect to continue to use) the `(rnrs
> >  mutable-pairs)' library in PLT Scheme's R6RS?
> If you implement R6RS, you shoule do so, mutable pairs and all.
> But I would have no problems with an additional PLT sublanguage 
> (perhaps called R6RS-- that did immutable pairs by default, and mutable 
> pairs using the special mcons function.
> I suspect the codebases for the two flavours will be nearly identical.
> Those requiring clean interoperability with PLT libraries would end up 
> using R6RS--.

Just to be clear, this does not answer my question. You've addressed a
more abstract question "What should be the relationship between the PLT
Scheme implementation and standardized dialects of Scheme?" It's fine
to answer that question, but it's not the question that currently
interests me.

I'm asking how many people intent to actually use `(rnrs
mutable-pairs)' in practice. So far, the answer seems to be zero... but
it's only been a couple of hours since I asked the question.


Posted on the users mailing list.