[uim-commit] r1249 - branches/r5rs/scm

[yamaken at freedesktop.org]

Author: yamaken
Date: 2005-08-20 15:11:18 -0700 (Sat, 20 Aug 2005)
New Revision: 1249

Modified:
   branches/r5rs/scm/util.scm
Log:
* This commit adds two Siod compatible procedures. Kazuki, you seems
  misunderstanding about the specification of 'print' and 'puts' of
  Siod. Please stop using 'print' of SigScheme to replace them, and
  restore original behavior of the codes already replaced.

  And in my opinion, SigScheme itself should not provide the 'print'
  procedure since:

  - It's not a standard
  - It's easily be misunderstood about its specification
  - It's easily conflict with other implementation

  I suggest defining 'displayln' in util.scm instead of embedding an
  equivalent into the interpreter. Please consider about it.

* scm/util.scm
  - (puts): New procedure for Siod compatibility. It should be
    obsoleted once all 'puts' have been replaced to 'display'
  - (siod-print): Ditto. This is compatible to the 'print' procedure
    of the Siod


Modified: branches/r5rs/scm/util.scm
===================================================================
--- branches/r5rs/scm/util.scm	2005-08-20 21:44:19 UTC (rev 1248)
+++ branches/r5rs/scm/util.scm	2005-08-20 22:11:18 UTC (rev 1249)
@@ -311,6 +311,17 @@
   (lambda (lst)
     (append lst '())))
 
+;; Siod compatibility
+(define puts display)
+
+;; TODO: Rename to more appropriate name such as 'inspect' (the name
+;; came from debugging terms) or simply 'writeln'. But since I don't
+;; know Scheme culture enough, I can't determine what is appropriate.
+(define siod-print
+  (lambda (obj)
+    (write obj)
+    (newline)))
+
 ;;
 ;; SRFI procedures (don't expect 100% compatibility)
 ;;