This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 72 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 72 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.
bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Michael Sperber wrote: > > I don't think I believe that "phase violations are always errors". > Why shouldn't I be able to define a new object type at runtime, > along with specialized syntax that operates on such objects, and > thereafter use those syntax forms in the same program? Phases are not (only) about compile time and run time, they're about making sure that something is defined when it's used. You violate that, you're making an error. Systems that enforce this (such as Scheme 48 or PLT Scheme) don't take away any expressiveness---quite on the contrary, they *add* expressiveness for describing the phases. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla