Vincent Manis scripsit: > I'd suggest that Core Scheme can have a specification for LOAD that > says what environment the code is loaded into, and then goes on to say > that the locations where code may be loaded from are implementation- > dependent.
That's pretty much what R5RS already says about load: "[The argument] should be a string naming an existing file containing Scheme source code". What files exist is obviously highly environment-dependent. What's more, R5RS is the only standard to define load, and it makes the procedure explicitly optional. > This may sound as though it contradicts my earlier comments about no > options. Not so, I don't want to see LOAD being an option (because > that opens the way for much nastier options). But stating that an > implementation can restrict the effectiveness of LOAD seems entirely > reasonable to me. Quite so, just as every implementation puts a limit (usually undocumented) on the maximum size of exact integers. > I would venture to say that there is no other feature of existing > Scheme that is wanted in the core language but not in `clever > compiler' Ultra Scheme. So I believe we can address the problem > without needing an incompatible subset. I think you are right on the level of procedures. It's the semantics of R5RS files vs. R6RS programs that concerns me. -- Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x) Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! --Joyce, Ulysses, "Oxen of the Sun" [email protected] _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
