This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 83 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 83 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Taylor Campbell <campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:33:34 +0100 > From: Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > It does, though, make it difficult to extend in the current syntax > in a way that bear wants. Grovelling through the source to > libraries is not an option, but currently the EXPORT syntax is > embedded in the library bodies. But in a way that's trivial to extract. > - Macros require you to have some representation of the source code of > the library you're importing anyway. (Some people might argue this > is a design mistake in the library syntax---several people are > working on macro/module systems that don't have this property. But > once again, (very) active ongoing research, not ready for R6RS.) > > This is true (except I don't see why you need the source code and not > just any representation of the code, source or compiled), Yes; I worded this very poorly. What I meant is that you need access to the implementation of modules you import in many cases anyway; the (implied) interface is not enough. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla