[gambit-list] AWS, Termite, and Snow
James Long
longster at gmail.com
Sat Feb 2 12:38:32 EST 2008
This may not be my place, but just a thought on module systems since
we're discussing the future of them.
Am I the only one that would like to see Scheme48's module system
become the de-facto standard? I know that's a pipe dream, but after
fiddling around with it, it's the only one that really makes sense
(there are many I haven't used, but that's also what I hear from a few
others). I'm not even sure what Scheme48's take on conforming to
either R6RS or ERR5RS is, because it definitely wouldn't forego its
module system. I suppose it could build a compatibility layer of some
sort.
I know hygienic macros are hard - but from what I know Snow doesn't
even attempt to fix the problem of cross-module macros (I think it
only fixes loading macros from compiled modules). I like how Snow
handles versioning though, but I'd like to see some of the deeper
problems addressed in a module system (hygienic macros, reflective
tower, etc.).
On Feb 1, 2008 6:13 AM, Adrien Pierard <pierarda at iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:29:19PM -0500, Joe Hosteny wrote :
> > Also, does anyone have a feel for what is going on with Snow? It
> > seems like the traffic on the mailing list is a bit slow, and the
> > number of packages is still relatively few. Don't get me wrong - my
>
> Since R6RS and ERR5RS both provide modules/libraries/else, shouldn't we focus on the
> latter, and use the implementors lobby to insert some cond-expand in the
> library and therefore, define the new de-facto standard for portable
> code?
>
> (library (foo)
> (export x)
> (import (err5rs))
> (define (my-fun x)
> (cond-expand
> (gambit
> (if (version< (current-version) "4.1.2")
> (error "Need at least gambit 4.1.2")
> (+ x 1)))
> (else
> (error "Sorry, this code currently runs on Gambit only")))))
>
> This raises the issue of the fork of Scheme (ERR5RS), whereas Snow is intended to
> be Scheme compatible (R4RS), but could be a solution.
>
> This could somehow enforce a common framework for portable code
> for the next release of Scheme that is supported by at least 60% of
> *implementors*, wouldn't it?
> We could then use Snow as the global repository for all this code, and
> require SRFIs implementors upload their reference implementation on this
> new Snow...
>
> Adrien
>
> --
> "I am not a Church numeral; I am a free variable!"
> (The Scheme Underground)
> For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gambit-list mailing list
> Gambit-list at iro.umontreal.ca
> https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
>
--
James Long
More information about the Gambit-list
mailing list