[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Guile-user] Re: and module system

From: Jost Boekemeier
Subject: Re: [Guile-user] Re: and module system
Date: 04 Sep 2000 18:59:49 +0200

address@hidden (Carl R. Witty) writes:

> > Anyway, what we should be concerned with is the intrinsic limitations
> > of their specification rather than their implementation.
> I haven't studied the paper closely enough to tell whether the
> specification can be implemented with separate interfaces.

I think it should be possible to correct the problems by replacing
their module and open primitives by a signature, a module and a link
primitive.  While signatures don't have VM representations, everything
else can be compiled into structs and closures.

And of course you must support some kind of update protocol so that
the VM can re-compile and re-link parts of the system.

A low level module system and support for other module systems will
be trivial when Qscheme's VM and Goops are in the core, I think.


reply via email to

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