Lynn Winebarger wrote: > Is there any ready mechanism for dynamically generating the export > list of a library form from the expansion of the library form itself?
No. > Would such an added feature be acceptable to the larceny developers? If the feature were part of some standard, so implementing the feature would contribute to portability, then we would certainly consider implementing it. > Any pitfalls? Well, I haven't seen the proposed syntax and don't understand the proposed semantics. In general, however, implementing nonstandard features tends to degrade portability. Larceny has been a pioneer with respect to some features, such as ERR5RS and allowing multiple libraries in the same file, and I'm more interested in seeing progress toward greater portability of those fairly basic features than in plowing still further ahead by adding even more nonstandard extensions to Larceny. Will _______________________________________________ Larceny-users mailing list Larceny-users@lists.ccs.neu.edu https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/bin/listinfo/larceny-users
