2009/8/18 peter lo <peter19852001@yahoo.com.hk>:
and honestly when we intend to distribute executables, we do not want to leave out users using Windows.)?
It hurts me to say that, but size really isn't important anymore, *especially* when targetting desktop OS's like Windows, is it?r On the other hand, it would be welcome to have a flavor of Gambit which is less expressive. I do not know how burdensome it would be to be able to prune whole parts of gambit to create "non development-ready" applications (that is, once the final product is to be delivered, compile it with a version of gambit which does not embed the whole runtime, does not allow debugging, etc). Or, maybe, allow the user to explicitely tell what he needs to import (declare (with-great-power-comes-great-responsability ;; EVAL's environment should only know those, should it be used read current-input-port current-output-port char=? list + - /*)) (define (arithmetic-evaluator) ...) (eval '(car '(1 2))) ;; segfault. You should've added CAR too. Don't complain to us. Even though this is far from complete, this may be a compromise. (And this is in favor of giving a seconde parameter to EVAL, if the user has the capacity to create environments). So, forgiving the fact that I am not an expert language implementer, how realistic are those ideas for Gambit-C? P! -- Français, English, 日本語, 한국어