Re: Order of execution in quasiquote lists (again)

[Kjetil S. Matheussen]

Han-Wen Nienhuys:
> > Hi, I'm still confused and irritated that the order of execution
> > in quasiquote lists are not (in my opinion) proper. I wrote about
> > this to this list some time ago, and got the expected answer that
> > the scheme standard does not specify the order.
> >
> > However, there is nothing wrong still doing it according to the
> > specification, its still scheme.
> >
> > Is there a good reason why the execution is random for guile?
>
> I think it is wise not to change this. If GUILE starts specifying a
> certain execution order, people will rely on this order, which will
> guarantees that their code will  break on other Schemes.

Well, I see it more like setting something that should be the standard
for scheme.

The magic about lisp is that it can be used by the programmer to 
configure itself to be any kind of programming language, and giving the 
programmer infinite freedom. However, when the order of execution is 
"random", guile tends to force a more functional programming style onto 
the programmer, which in many/most cases are just fine. However, in some 
situations, the programmer knows better, and would like to use set! (or 
something like that) inside unquoted blocks in quasiquote lists. By 
having it "random", guile implicit assumes that the programmer is stupid.
And that is also offending.