Re: Dangers of WITH-*-TO-* Procedures?This is a discussion on Re: Dangers of WITH-*-TO-* Procedures? within the Scheme forums in Programming Languages category; Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide @ sacrideo.us> writes: > Hello everyone, > > I have heard before that the gratuitous use of WITH-OUTPUT-TO-* and > WITH-INPUT-FROM-* procedures can leave problems in one's code. The > general recommendationw as to use CALL-WITH-* procedures instead. > I mentioned this to someone, and when they asked why, I had no real > good answer. I know that I sometimes use one over the other, but > I wonder why the usage of one might be considered dangerous? Perhaps > there was an effeciency concern instead? Can someone provide a > comparison of all the ... | ||||||||
| | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
#1
08-13-2008, 07:08 PM
| |||
| |||
 Re: Dangers of WITH-*-TO-* Procedures? Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> writes: > Hello everyone, > > I have heard before that the gratuitous use of WITH-OUTPUT-TO-* and > WITH-INPUT-FROM-* procedures can leave problems in one's code. The > general recommendationw as to use CALL-WITH-* procedures instead. > I mentioned this to someone, and when they asked why, I had no real > good answer. I know that I sometimes use one over the other, but > I wonder why the usage of one might be considered dangerous? Perhaps > there was an effeciency concern instead? Can someone provide a > comparison of all the considerations one might want to make when > choosing to use one or the other of these functions? In scheme, it may be related to the presence of call/cc. http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PFAQ/unw...-original.html -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ CAUTION: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent of 85 million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.  |
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:28 PM.
