xxxxxx@autodrip.bloodandcoffee.net wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, felix wrote:
>
>
>>xxxxxx@autodrip.bloodandcoffee.net wrote:
>>
>>>    (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.
>>
>>Just one question: what makes
>>
>>(program (required srfi-1))
>>(display (iota 5))
>>
>>more portable (in the sense of being compatible with S48's module system),
>>than
>>
>>(require-extension (srfi 1))
>>(display (iota 55))
>>
>>???
>>
>>(provided SRFI-55 is changed in such a way that it's recommended
>>use is as the first expression in a file)
>
>
> Felix, I spent a significant portion of my last paragraph there in
> answering that question before you even asked it.  The PROGRAM form is
> _not_ in Scheme; it's in an _entirely_disjoint_ configuration language.
> REQUIRE-EXTENSION as you propose would become a part of the _Scheme_
> language; it would essentially extend the <command or definition>
> nonterminal in R5RS with a new option.

Yes, so what prevents `require-extension' to be such a disjoint config-language
form? If I understand correctly merely requiring that `require-extension' should
be the first form in the program text (directly, not as an expansion of another
macro) would make it compatible with Scheme48, right?

cheers,
felix