a simple counter-proposal campbell@xxxxxx (28 Aug 2004 15:52 UTC)
|
Re: a simple counter-proposal
felix
(30 Aug 2004 19:54 UTC)
|
Re: a simple counter-proposal
campbell@xxxxxx
(30 Aug 2004 20:21 UTC)
|
Re: a simple counter-proposal
felix
(30 Aug 2004 20:26 UTC)
|
Re: a simple counter-proposal
campbell@xxxxxx
(03 Sep 2004 17:14 UTC)
|
Re: a simple counter-proposal
felix
(06 Sep 2004 19:22 UTC)
|
a simple counter-proposal campbell@xxxxxx 28 Aug 2004 16:02 UTC
It occurred to me last night that a particularly simple extension to SRFI 7 would likely appease all sides of this issue, including myself and Felix. (Both a proponent of the existing SRFI 55 proposal and a proponent of Scheme48's module system on IRC have already approved of it.) SRFI 7's grammar would be extended in the <program> nonterminal: <program> --> (PROGRAM <program-clause>+) <command or definition>* where <command or definition> is as defined by R5RS in section 7.1.6. In the case that there are forms S* following the PROGRAM form that contains clauses C*, it would be equivalent to having written a PROGRAM form (program C* (code S*)). For example, Felix might write a program with SRFI 55 to display the result of (iota 5): (require-extension srfi-1) (display (iota 5)) In SRFI 7, this would be written as: (program (requires srfi-1) (code (display (iota 5)))) Felix objects to this on grounds of complexity and extra typing. With this new amendment proposal, the program written with SRFI 7* would be: (program (requires srfi-1)) (display (iota 5)) which retains all existing functionality of SRFI 7 -- the feature conditionalization -- and all brevity of SRFI 55's REQUIRE-EXTENSION -- it's only a single character longer, in fact --; furthermore, it is still compatible with module systems such as that of Scheme48, because the module data -- the configuration language -- is _still_ entirely disjoint from Scheme, unlike the present SRFI 55's REQUIRE-EXTENSION; the configuration language is very clearly separated from Scheme in that the PROGRAM form is the first in the file, and every following S- expression is Scheme. I propose that SRFI 55 be revised to define this amendment/extension to SRFI 7, which I expect will satisfy the demands in brevity of Felix as well as retain the functionality of SRFIs 0 & 7, and moreover still be as extremely portable as SRFI 7. (While they're at it, the SRFI 55 authors could also include a statement about trying to make features available if they're not already available, if they still consider the absence of such a statement in SRFI 7 an important issue.) Comments?