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

From: Greg Woodhouse (gregory.woodhouse at gmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 26 13:09:31 EST 2008

Well, I've used mutable pairs in the past to model graph structures, but
it's already been pointed out that PLT Scheme offers an alternative, so I'm
not worried about it.

I've tried to argue that standards are extremeley important in certain
areas, such as healthcare, and in government, so the R6RS discussion is
hardldy moot. But I also think that immutable pairs represents a natural
evolution and a significant technical advantatge. One point I frequently
make in my day to day work that I think is especially pertinent here is that
it is not the role of standards and standards bodies to create unnecessary
work or discourage innovation. I was on a call yesterday where we came to
the conclusion that a certain HITSP provision was essentially
unimplementable and so we have been talking about going back to the
standards body. Sometimes, that's just right.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Grant Rettke <grettke at acm.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> 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?
> Other than working on the TSPL homework, no, and, Jos' point would
> address that use case.
>  _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20081126/d038bf6c/attachment.html>

Posted on the users mailing list.