[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: a separate configuration language
We editors like your suggestion. Many thanks for coming up with it!
Now if we could only get Marc to jump in ...
Let me add a few comments:
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Kelsey <kelsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Richard> - It may be difficult to implement either version of SRFI 0 in the
Richard> presence of a module system. This is certainly the case with
Richard> Scheme 48.
Actually, I have an implementation of our suggestion for Scheme 48 :-)
There's one change you suggest which we're not happy with:
Richard> Unlike the proposed COND-IMPLEMENTS, the implementation has no
Richard> leeway in choosing which clause to use (down with ambiguity!).
We bounced this around quite a number of times among the editors. I
don't know how to better support our case for leaving in the ambiguity
than what's already in the suggestion:
> The COND-IMPLEMENTS construct specified here gives Scheme
> implementations more flexibility in implementing it. The
> specification is intentionally ambiguous as to which clause will be
> expanded in a COND-IMPLEMENTS form. This is in order to allow Scheme
> implementations to choose an especially convenient (fastest/least
> memory-intensive/...) combination of implementations.
My co-editors may add more comments to this, but this is definitely a
concern we share.
Cheers =8-} Mike