[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: a separate configuration language

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 0 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 0 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Hi Richard,

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