From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: how to validate input? Date: 2000/04/26 Message-ID: <3165754243765645@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 615958246 References: <87wvlv75lf.fsf@inka.de> <3165639388940721@naggum.no> <3165662049043666@naggum.no> <3165723013673296@naggum.no> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 956766003 21458 195.0.192.66 (26 Apr 2000 16:20:03 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Apr 2000 16:20:03 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Joe Marshall | I am. I assert that the _semantics_ of the language are unchanged | when tail-recursion is present: the results of *all* computations | _that produce results_ is identical under both; thus there is no | semantic issue at all. this is a very narrow definition of "semantics", and I don't think it's useful to discuss such definitions, so suffice to say that I do not respect the view that the only semantics are those that can be described by denotational semantics. | Certainly if full proper tail-recursion is too expensive to implement, | but no tail-recursion whatsoever is undesirable, self-tail-recursion | is an attractive alternative. Indeed, many Scheme implementations | only provide self-tail recursion. I still have the impression that I'm not getting through with the distinction between _requiring_ a particular implementation of tail calls and _allowing_ it as and when desired. there is _nothing_ whatsoever that affects "allows" if one argues against "requires". I have no interest in countering arguments against "allows", as I have explicitly argued _for_ "allow", already. among the reasons I'm no fan of Scheme is that the _requirements_ in its language design are very serious mistakes, and they affect the way Scheme people think about language design so adversely that it is sometimes impossible to penetrate the view that "if it isn't required in the standard, you can't trust smart people to do it". e.g, I don't see anyone (except Scheme people who knock down strawman arguments) even bring up "no tail-recursion whatsoever". it's a cheap argument, but it accurately reflects my sentiments towards most of what distinguishes Scheme from everything else: if it's so smart, other smart people will want to do it, but if they don't, maybe it wasn't so smart to begin with. this is the best simple answer to the sentiment nearly unique to Scheme: "why does language X _lack_ random feature Y (from Scheme)", which is raised in nearly those words in c.l.l from time to time. as an even cheaper argument, I'd summarize Scheme by saying that all its good ideas have been absorbed elsewhere and the only stuff left to brag about is that which wasn't smart to begin with, which tends to reinforce the silliness of the Scheme superiority. in contrast to this, Common Lisp doesn't suffer from a need to feel superior, mostly because it has so much "impure" and historic stuff in it that any "superiority" would be ridiculous, anyway, but it has a unique blend of pragmatic and elegant design that means you can always attack specifics, but you can't attack the design without implicitly or explicitly arguing for a _worse_ design. that's why the language specification doesn't _require_ a smart feature that isn't smart across the board and always, but also doesn't disallow it (like some other languages do through sheer incompetence). #:Erik