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

Re: a simple counter-proposal

campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, felix wrote:

Yes, so what prevents `require-extension' to be such a disjoint config-language
form? If I understand correctly merely requiring that `require-extension' should
be the first form in the program text (directly, not as an expansion of another
macro) would make it compatible with Scheme48, right?

Yes, although I don't understand why you'd want to so dramatically
move away from SRFI 7 when it is such a trivial amendment to SRFI 7,
SRFI 7 provides much more quite useful functionality anyway, and SRFI 7
permits extension considerably more easily: the PROGRAM form is a quite
general form, whereas REQUIRE-EXTENSION has only one purpose, to
declare a dependency on a feature.

The fact that `require-extension' serves a single purpose is clear and
fully intended. It also appears to me more natural and straightforward
than shoehorning SRFI-7 into a more usable form.

If you think SRFI-7 should be amended and/or extended, I would find it
very reasonable to do so. Yet, I think SRFI-55 expresses the notion
of "loading/linking whatever this implementation needs to support SRFI X"
in a clearer way.
It might also be a good idea to recommend putting any `require-extension'
forms at the top of a source-file, preceding any other top-level forms,
which in the end would make it even compatible (in whatever way, I don't
know much about S48's implementation) with Schemes that separate the
configuration language from the actual code.