This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 55 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 55 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
That doesn't mean that we ought to not consider such large programs.
`require-extension' doesn't preclude large programs. I don't understand why it shouldn't. I *do* understand that it might be hard to implement in Scheme48, but thats a price I am willing to pay, so to speak.
b) `load' is not restricted to interactive useTo be useful, it is. It operates at run-time, so you can't effectively load a file that defines macros or reader syntax, or does anything at all before run-time.
It can load compiled code. That's quite useful to me. But perhaps we should stop talking about `load' and talk about `require-extension' instead. `load' is perhaps somehwat simple-minded, yet I mentioned it as an example (for an admittedly simple implementation of SRFI-55). In any case, `requre-extension' being syntax, it can expand into everything you like (or whatever your particular implementation needs).
Gah. You are narrow-mindedly thinking _ONLY_ about PLT's module systemwhen you consider module systems here!
I was giving the PLT module system as an example, to show you how a form rather similar to `require-extension' works well in combination with a quite sophisticated module system. > It would be just as useful for > me to say 'tell me how to implement REQUIRE or a variant thereof in > Scheme48. It doesn't work at all with a module system. > I foresee all sorts of problems.
REQUIRE implies a great deal about modules, and itcan't be compatible with them.' But that's not a useful thing to say,because I'm not considering anything but Scheme48's module system. Instead,
Indeed, you do.
I shall say that REQUIRE in any form is _not_necessarily_ compatible with all module systems, whereas SRFI 7 _can_always_be_.
Well spoken. cheers, felix