Re: message primitive

["Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>]

Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:

> "Greg J. Badros" <gjb@cs.washington.edu> writes:
> 
> > But it's *not* got anything to do with errors (except that the error
> > functionality will *use* it).  I think the leading candidates is:
> > %simple-message
> 
> How about "simple-format"?

Should it be prefixed with %?  I.e., %simple-format? 

> P.S. I should add that I'm a bit reluctant to this whole thing.  It
>      seems to me that one wants to avoid redundancy.  If there's a
>      problem that the current format loads a lot of scheme code, then
>      perhaps the right solution is to implement it in C?
> 
>      If it's too heavyweight, then one might be able to strip away
>      some of the features, provide a simple format in libguile and
>      make a more general version of `format' available in a library?

Again, this is just a question of exposing a C procedure that already
exists as a primitive since it is generally useful but not currently
accessible.  It's a nicely-encapsulated idea, that just doesn't make
sense to not have available when it already exists.

Greg