Re: Recursive namespace

[Rob Browning]

Keisuke Nishida <address@hidden> writes:

> I just followed a notation some other systems use.  I thought this
> notation might be less confusing because Guile is going to support
> multiple languages and many languages would use a notation like
> this.
> 
> Is there any reason we shouldn't allow this notation in Scheme?  It
> is not R5RS-compatible, but it should be user's choice whether or
> not to follow R5RS.

I'm still not sure what the notation your're describing is intended
for.  Is it to be used in the intermediate language for the VM, or is
it intended for use in normal guile code?  If the former, then why is
any syntactic sugar needed at all?  What's wrong with something more
explicit as others have suggested (note that without knowing the
context this code is probably meaningless...):

  (let ((var-1 (module-ref (list list-ref))))
      (cons (var-1 x y) y))

etc.  It shouldn't be a big deal for the few people writing
translators from other languages to the VM intermediate language to
use (mod-ref x y z) instead of x::y::z IMO.

-- 
Rob Browning <address@hidden> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930