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

Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate

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