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.