On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 11:20 +0200, Michele Simionato wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Derick Eddington
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >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...
> 
> In PLT different phases have different instances, so a library can be
> instantiated
> at expand time but no at run-time. In implicit phasing there is a
> single instance
> for all phases, 

Only for the phases it's used for.  If expand-time phase(s) don't happen
because of separate compilation already doing them, those phases don't
happen and so there's no instance, same as explicit phasing.

> so I expect an imported library to be instantiated
> both a compile time and
> at runtime, even if it may be a waste (I am not arguing it is not a waste).

Then why don't you lobby GCC to include its compiler machinery in the
things it compiles?

> > 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...
> 
> Don't take it personally, Derick. We can just agree to disagree on the
> point of what is the "right" import semantics.

I'm not taking it personally.  I'm just pointing out your behavior,
which I totally understand you might not consciously notice.  If I was
taking it personally, I'd be far more virulent :)

> >> 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...
> 
> Let's close the discussion on this point, since I do not think
> it would be a productive one.

Isn't psychotherapy productive? ;)

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

Reply via email to