[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: API for introduction of bindings

From: Michael Livshin
Subject: Re: API for introduction of bindings
Date: 18 Dec 2000 19:20:24 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (20 Minutes to Nikko)

Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden writes:
> > At 17 Dec 2000 20:00:38 +0100,
> > Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> > > 
> > > I suggest that we instead focus on the problem of dividing the current
> > > set of bindings into a nice hierarchy of modules, like
> > > "(core safe-r5rs)", "(core r5rs)", etc.  (I think Maciej and Jim had a
> > > preliminary proposal, Maciej? Jim?)
> > 
> > I'd prefer modules like "(core list)", "(core string)", etc. according
> > to their functionality rather than standards.  We can build standard
> > modules like "(scheme r5rs)" by importing the core modules and exporting
> > necessary bindings, right?
> That's certainly possible.
> Is this useful?  (It's not meant as a rhetoric question.)

not to the end-users, IMHO.  but in the implementation -- maybe.
perhaps it would make building different Scheme dialect modules


(dialect R4RS):    (...)
(dialect iScheme): ((dialect R4RS) (core GOOPS) ...)
(dialect R5RS):    ((dialect R4RS) (core macro-system) (core dynwind))
(dialect Guile):   ((dialect R5RS) (core syntax-case) (core modules) ...)

I'm not sure things like list or string primitives need to be
segregated, though.

There are few personal problems which can't be solved by the suitable
application of high explosives.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]