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)
|
Re: a simple counter-proposal felix 06 Sep 2004 19:30 UTC
xxxxxx@autodrip.bloodandcoffee.net wrote: > On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, felix wrote: > > >>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? > > > Yes, although I don't understand why you'd want to so dramatically > move away from SRFI 7 when it is such a trivial amendment to SRFI 7, > SRFI 7 provides much more quite useful functionality anyway, and SRFI 7 > permits extension considerably more easily: the PROGRAM form is a quite > general form, whereas REQUIRE-EXTENSION has only one purpose, to > declare a dependency on a feature. > The fact that `require-extension' serves a single purpose is clear and fully intended. It also appears to me more natural and straightforward than shoehorning SRFI-7 into a more usable form. If you think SRFI-7 should be amended and/or extended, I would find it very reasonable to do so. Yet, I think SRFI-55 expresses the notion of "loading/linking whatever this implementation needs to support SRFI X" in a clearer way. It might also be a good idea to recommend putting any `require-extension' forms at the top of a source-file, preceding any other top-level forms, which in the end would make it even compatible (in whatever way, I don't know much about S48's implementation) with Schemes that separate the configuration language from the actual code. cheers, felix