Opened 6 years ago

Closed 5 years ago

#305 closed defect (fixed)

Should we move the c...r and c....r procedures into a new module?

Reported by: cowan Owned by: cowan
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: WG1 - Core Keywords:


They have been required for a long time, but Alex Shinn says:

I definitely think everything but the one and two depth combinations should be removed from (scheme base). Their use is generally a code smell. People should use destructuring, records, or SRFI-1 first..tenth accessors.

Ray Dillinger (Bear) adds:

The historic use of these entities was as accessors for structured aggregates implemented with cons cells. In a language that directly supports records, they have a reduced mission.

Change History (5)

comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by cowan

Arthur Gleckler is against this.

I'm on the fence.

comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by cowan

On reflection, they are the Right Thing when dealing with trees built from conses. They are only problematic when used for lists.

So I'm against this migration.

comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by cowan

  • Status changed from new to decided

The WG voted to adopt this proposal, moving c...r and c....r procedures to the (scheme cxr) library.

comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by cowan

  • Owner changed from alexshinn to cowan
  • Status changed from decided to writing

comment:5 Changed 5 years ago by cowan

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from writing to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.