Let me first state that this thread is arguing at a depth where the only contributions that remain for me to make are syllogisms without an actual knowledge of what I am talking about.
In order not to appear ungrateful, I will do that, but there will be little point in expecting me to be of assistance in judging their merit. Noah Lavine <[email protected]> writes: > If I understand correctly, Mark wants to restrict the set of variables > you can access to those you could access through normal Scheme code. > This is an issue because psyntax happens to provide a way to access > more variables than standard Scheme. If this is the case, I think we > should absolutely restrict it to standard Scheme, because letting you > access everything psyntax can access a) is not Scheme and b) restricts > our future implementation choices. If psyntax accesses more than Scheme can access while doing a task that is worth doing, what chance would there be in giving Scheme the power to access what psyntax can? If exporting enough of the compiler environment to be useful for implementing multiple compilation units sharing lexical environments is feasible, what are the implications for splitting a compilation into separate units when the extent of psyntax is not similarly involved? In short: where should one draw the line in a way that makes best use of already done compilations without having to redo too much to be of practical use? > In general, this thread has been very, very impressive. Thanks a lot > to everyone who has been working so hard on this. Agreed. -- David Kastrup
