Re: [Scheme-reports] Mutable Pairs

[David Rush <kumoyuki@x>]

On 15 June 2010 02:06, Eli Barzilay <eli@x> wrote:

On Jun 14, David Rush wrote:

> On 14 June 2010 16:27, Eli Barzilay <eli@x> wrote: 

> > currently (RnRS) Scheme is guessing wrong in >99% of the cases,

> > and it makes it extremely hard for me to correct it.
>
> This is FUD. The occurrence of the class of bugs for which you have
> highlighted the potential is *far* (orders of magnitude) lower than
> this.  You have a point, and it is a real problem from a provability
> standpoint,

(And that's the pretentiousness.  I started by saying that I have no
interest in provability.)

I said that the bug hardly ever occurs in practice. Personally, I have *never* seen it, so as far as I can tell it is entirely a theoretical possibility (much like the exponential blow-up in HM type inference). I apologize if that seems pretentious.

And now you can dismiss this with a "Puh-lease",

Hardly. I said I see your point. But the cost/benefit score for me sees very little benefit for the cost.

(And this is my bus stop.)

Thank you for riding Contentious Bus Lines. It was good to have you aboard. 

david
-- 
GPG Public key at http://cyber-rush.org/drr/gpg-public-key.txt
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports