[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Independent optimizing compilation
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