Re: problems with rationale & design

[felix <felix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> That doesn't mean that we ought to not consider such large programs.

`require-extension' doesn't preclude large programs. I don't understand
why it shouldn't. I *do* understand that it might be hard to implement
in Scheme48, but thats a price I am willing to pay, so to speak.

> > b) `load' is not restricted to interactive use
>
>
> To be useful, it is.  It operates at run-time, so you can't effectively 
> load a file that defines macros or reader syntax, or does anything at
> all before run-time.  

It can load compiled code. That's quite useful to me. But perhaps we should
stop talking about `load' and talk about `require-extension' instead. `load'
is perhaps somehwat simple-minded, yet I mentioned it as an example (for an
admittedly simple implementation of SRFI-55). In any case, `requre-extension'
being syntax, it can expand into everything you like (or whatever your
particular implementation needs).

> Gah.  You are narrow-mindedly thinking _ONLY_ about PLT's module system
> when you consider module systems here! 
I was giving the PLT module system as an example, to show you how
a form rather similar to `require-extension' works well in combination with
a quite sophisticated module system.


> It would be just as useful for
> me to say 'tell me how to implement REQUIRE or a variant thereof in
> Scheme48.  It doesn't work at all with a module system.
> I foresee all sorts of problems.
> REQUIRE implies a great deal about modules, and it
> can't be compatible with them.'  
> But that's not a useful thing to say,
> because I'm not considering anything but Scheme48's module system.
> Instead,

Indeed, you do.

> I shall say that REQUIRE in any form is _not_necessarily_
> compatible with all module systems, whereas SRFI 7 _can_always_be_.

Well spoken.


cheers,
felix