Thomas Lord scripsit: > So, yeah, the Chicken module system has the advantages you describe > over just require/provide.
Note that in Chicken, importing is separate from loading/requiring, though there is convenience syntax that first requires and then imports. > I still say it's too big for small scheme (and too small for big > scheme). In small scheme without it, you could implement something > very close to it in a library, as syntax. Can you sketch this? > Oh, I wouldn't mind seeing map and for-each pushed off to libraries. > Not at all. Now that you mention it it sounds like a good idea. > I'm not sentimental. > You (separately) asked what characters from ASCII I would omit > requiring: any that aren't part of the lexical language, is the answer. Exactly five, then. It hardly seems worth it. > By "of the essence" I mean that I just want the definition of small > scheme to capture some basic properties of lambda and some invariants > for basic data types and a some minimal form of syntactic extensiblity > (hygiene not being high on the priority list but flexibility is). Why bother with data types? Lambda does it all. And if you want pure lambda calculus, you know where to find it. > Something like the core language to which Rabbit reduced all syntax... Rabbit had the privilege of pushing all primitive functions into MacLisp (sensible for the environment and the goals of the project). -- Note that nobody these days would clamor for fundamental laws John Cowan of *the theory of kangaroos*, showing why pseudo-kangaroos are [email protected] physically, logically, metaphysically impossible. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Kangaroos are wonderful, but not *that* wonderful. --Dan Dennett on zombies _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
