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

Re: a simple counter-proposal



On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, felix wrote:

> campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >     (program (requires srfi-1))
> >     (display (iota 5))
> > 
> > which retains all existing functionality of SRFI 7 -- the feature
> > conditionalization -- and all brevity of SRFI 55's REQUIRE-EXTENSION --
> > it's only a single character longer, in fact --; furthermore, it is
> > still compatible with module systems such as that of Scheme48, because
> > the module data -- the configuration language -- is _still_ entirely
> > disjoint from Scheme, unlike the present SRFI 55's REQUIRE-EXTENSION;
> > the configuration language is very clearly separated from Scheme in
> > that the PROGRAM form is the first in the file, and every following S-
> > expression is Scheme.  I propose that SRFI 55 be revised to define this
> > amendment/extension to SRFI 7, which I expect will satisfy the demands
> > in brevity of Felix as well as retain the functionality of SRFIs 0 & 7,
> > and moreover still be as extremely portable as SRFI 7. 
> 
> Just one question: what makes
> 
> (program (required srfi-1))
> (display (iota 5))
> 
> more portable (in the sense of being compatible with S48's module system),
> than
> 
> (require-extension (srfi 1))
> (display (iota 55))
> 
> ???
> 
> (provided SRFI-55 is changed in such a way that it's recommended
> use is as the first expression in a file)

Felix, I spent a significant portion of my last paragraph there in
answering that question before you even asked it.  The PROGRAM form is
_not_ in Scheme; it's in an _entirely_disjoint_ configuration language.
REQUIRE-EXTENSION as you propose would become a part of the _Scheme_
language; it would essentially extend the <command or definition>
nonterminal in R5RS with a new option.