A liitle note on the side
felix
(23 Jun 2004 23:44 UTC)
|
Re: A liitle note on the side
Bradd W. Szonye
(24 Jun 2004 00:14 UTC)
|
Re: A liitle note on the side
Alex Shinn
(24 Jun 2004 03:10 UTC)
|
Re: A liitle note on the side
Bradd W. Szonye
(24 Jun 2004 03:55 UTC)
|
Re: A liitle note on the side
Jens Axel Søgaard
(24 Jun 2004 05:04 UTC)
|
Re: A liitle note on the side
Bradd W. Szonye
(24 Jun 2004 05:07 UTC)
|
Re: A liitle note on the side
Felix Winkelmann
(24 Jun 2004 05:19 UTC)
|
Re: A liitle note on the side
campbell@xxxxxx
(24 Jun 2004 16:56 UTC)
|
Re: A liitle note on the side
Bradd W. Szonye
(24 Jun 2004 18:47 UTC)
|
Re: A liitle note on the side campbell@xxxxxx (24 Jun 2004 04:19 UTC)
|
Re: A liitle note on the side
Alex Shinn
(24 Jun 2004 05:07 UTC)
|
Re: A liitle note on the side
campbell@xxxxxx
(24 Jun 2004 01:40 UTC)
|
Re: A liitle note on the side campbell@xxxxxx 24 Jun 2004 04:33 UTC
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Alex Shinn wrote: > I thought the "million line programs" discussion was useful. Anything > that big clearly needs dynamic-require, a superset of require. It > seems the Scheme48 module system is the one that needs to prove itself > here. Scheme48 has controlled & well-abstracted dynamic manipulation of the module system. DYNAMIC-REQUIRE is rather uncontrolled, inhibits compilers in just the same way that LOAD does, and doesn't allow for the same kind of first-class module system manipulation that Scheme48 does, so I think Scheme48 can be considered pretty well 'proven' in this regard.