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

Re: A liitle note on the side

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.

At Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:14:21 -0700, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> No, it isn't. Which Schemes already implement REQUIRE-EXTENSION? Any of
> them? Please, quit trying to pass off a brand new name as "common
> practice." Extensions that require name changes or new aliases are not
> "common practice."

The concept is common practice, and supporting the SRFI can be done
with a small macro in any Scheme that already supports require.

For those keeping score:

  12 schemes directly support the equivalent of require (chez,
  chicken, elk, gauche, guile, kawa, ksm, llava, mzscheme,
  pocketscheme, scm, stklos)

  2 schemes use an "include" form similar to require, possibly not
  handling multiple invocations correctly (gambit, stalin)

  6 schemes don't seem to have anything more than load (inlab-scheme,
  jaja, jscheme, larceny, oaklisp, mit-scheme)

  Bigloo puts all module info in a (module ...) form, but assumes the
  rest of the code in the file is part of the module, so it may be
  able to support require.

  Rscheme does not use a require-like approach, but could support it.

  Scheme48 is incompatible with require.

> > Now, it seems that some people take this as an opportunity to make big
> > statements about million line programs and the dangers to the future
> > of Scheme. This is ridiculuous.
> They're pointing out that your proposal doesn't actually solve anything,
> and that it's incompatible with some systems' requirements. That makes
> it technically inferior to existing solutions like SRFI-7. Why bother?

I thought the "million line programs" discussion was useful.  Anything
that big clearly needs dynamic-require, a superset of require.  It
seems the Scheme48 module system is the one that needs to prove itself