On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 09:56 +0200, Michele Simionato wrote:
> Maybe Ypsilon is using a non-orthodox interpretation of what "implicit
> phasing" means, but its interpretation is allowed by the R6RS and I happen
> to like its behaviour. In your example Ypsilon prints "(macro-helper) invoked"
> which is consistent with what I would have expected.
> IOW, I would have made the same mistake of Fujita, if  I were a Scheme
> implementor. I convinced that others would make the same "mistake" too.

I refer back to what I said about things used by a compiler as part of
the compilation process.  Such things are *very commonly* not expected
to be part of the run-time of a compiled program.  Why aren't you
complaining about how in PLT an explicit phasing (for --- expand) does
not instantiate the library at run-time?  But you want an equivalent
import form in implicit phasing to do so...

> >> Suppose I am importing a library
> >> purely for its side effects
> >
> > That is a major misuse of importing.  Importing is purely a lexical
> > scope thing.  It's far more confusing to have to figure-out that a
> > lexical import is being done to implicitly cause side-effects at
> > execution time.  If you want to execute something in an imported
> > library, say so (in code), like you would for a zillion other cases.
> 
> You say so, but at least the PLT people think in a different way.

I'm pretty sure they'd agree that importing *only for causing
side-effects* (which is what we were talking about) is a major misuse.
As increasingly seems to be your usual, you're twisting the conversation
into a maze in order to appear to defend what you previously said, when
in fact you don't address it.  Or maybe you're just not paying
attention...

> I say the meaning of "import" is open to interpretation in the
> Scheme world and I do not know of any other implementation
> using the meaning in the strict sense of Ikarus.

After searching all four R6RS documents for every occurrence of
"import", I now know they only talk about importing in the context of
lexical scope.  Hmm...

-- 
: Derick
----------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to