At Fri, 28 Jun 2013 23:25:22 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > At Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:43:42 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > >> > At Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:08:19 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> > wrote: > >> >> > At Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:38:03 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Robby Findler > >> >> >> <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > >> >> >> > Did you consider moving "#lang mzscheme" out as well? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I've now created another pull request that does this, here: > >> >> >> https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/377 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> There's one remaining question. The `make-base-namespace` procedure > >> >> >> provided by `mzscheme` attaches the `mzscheme` module. But this pull > >> >> >> request removes that module, so it can't be attached or required in > >> >> >> this code. The alternatives are: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 1. Just attach/require `scheme/mzscheme`. Slightly incompatible in > >> >> >> some corner cases. > >> >> >> 2. Don't remove `mzscheme` from the core. > >> >> >> 3. Remove `make*-namespace` from `scheme/mzscheme` and implement them > >> >> >> in the `mzscheme` collection in the `mzscheme` package. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'm currently leaning toward 3 but I'd appreciate anyone else's > thoughts. > >> >> > > >> >> > Is there some reason that `scheme/mzscheme' can't move to the > >> >> > "mzscheme" package (along with `racket/private/stxmz-body')? > >> >> > >> >> Because large portions of the core are written in the `mzscheme` > >> >> language (or `scheme/mzscheme`, after my patch), some of which feature > >> >> evaluating code in mzscheme-like namespaces. If we can somehow get > >> >> around the latter problem, then the former is a Small Matter of > >> >> Programming, but it'll take a little while. > >> > > >> > Ah --- I had not actually looked at 9587a2f. > >> > > >> > I guess I'm confused on the goal, since I don't see changing `mzscheme' > >> > to `scheme/mzscheme' as a step forward. Can you say more about the > >> > intent of changing `mzscheme' to `scheme/mzscheme'? > >> > >> The intent is to reduce the API surface area provided by the core. > >> Note that `scheme/mzscheme` is not a documented API. Thus, moving the > >> `mzscheme` language and collection would require anyone who depended > >> on them to explicitly depend on another package. At some later point, > >> we finish implementing the core without using `scheme/mzscheme`, move > >> the actual implementation of `mzscheme` to the `mzscheme` package, > >> without any compatibility problems. > > > > I see what you mean, but it feels wrong to me that `scheme/mzscheme' > > exists and isn't documented. I'd prefer to work toward getting it in > > the right package and documented. > > Do you see an advantage to documenting it, over just having `mzscheme` > documented (and perhaps moving `scheme/mzscheme` to `racket/private`)?
No, I agree with your suggestion (I think) that just having `mzscheme' would be better. > > There's also the issue that `scheme/mzscheme' introduces an > > `for-syntax' import of `scheme/mzscheme', and not a `for-syntax' import > > of `mzscheme', so `make-base-namespace' would disappear from phase 1 in > > `mzscheme' --- if I'm following correctly. > > I don't follow this. As far as I can tell, neither `mzscheme` nor > `scheme/mzscheme` introduce `for-syntax` imports of anything. The `#%module-begin' of `mzscheme' introduces `(#%require (for-syntax scheme/mzscheme))' into the module body --- a leftover from the days before phase-1 exports were supported. Changing the introduced `require' from `scheme/mzscheme' to `mzscheme' should be ok, as far as I can tell. We just don't want to accidentally change the bindings that are imported by that `require'. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
