[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: r6rs libraries

From: Julian Graham
Subject: Re: r6rs libraries
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:38:09 -0500

Hi Andy,

>  1) should probably be replaced (in part?) with an
>    implementation of R6RS macros, which have some extensions relative
>    to R5RS, but otherwise are compatible afaik

Yikes -- I'm in a bit of a maze of twisty little passages here.
Aziz's implementation doesn't support Guile out of the box, and, while
I was certainly prepared to hack Guile support in, it seems like it
assumes a fair amount of R6RS to be already present in the host
system.  Neither `(rnrs base)' nor any of the other libraries it's
asking for look to be too difficult to package out of Guile's existing
functionality, but it seems like we also need full `import' semantics
as well just to bootstrap it.

So maybe I'm being dense here, but it looks like the way forward might
be to whip up a quick module-to-library mapping system (i.e.,
something like (foo bar (version)) -> /foo/bar/version) and then start
working on piecemeal attempts to get imports working?  Like, in the
following order, I'd say we could tackle:

1) Mapping the existing features of Guile's module system onto their
R6RS counterparts
2) Implementing version selection
3) Implementing import levels

> I'd like to get around to this at some point, if you decide to punt. But
> that's probably not directly relevant to your question on guile-lib ;-)

Right -- well, as far as that goes, Neil did seem amenable to adding
it to "Guile proper."  Any opinion on how much of guile-lib should be
included (and what should be done with the rest) and how it should be
organized?  As I've mentioned, I've got some personal "must-haves"
(statprof, SSAX, etc.).

(And I was just trying to fork this discussion, not execve it!  ;-))


reply via email to

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