Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit: > So what this tells us from an R7RS perspective is > that it'd be nice to have a standard facility to ask that a block of > code be totally ignored (not even macro-expanded, lest we use > implementation-specific macros that throw up errors in other > implementations) if we're not on a particular implementation.
That's cond-expand, SRFI-0. You are the first person to defend it in my virtual hearing, though it is very widely implemented. Should I add it to my proposals? Note that because it works at the level of macro expansion, it can neuter uses of my proposal for extensible lexical syntax, but not a read-level mechanism like PLT's. > 50 pages is by no means magical! I'm more interested in keeping > features that aren't necessary for "being Scheme" But what is Scheme? (said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer). > out of the (core) spec, and standardising them elsewhere (SRFIs) or > as "optional" extensions to the spec. Because I want it to be easy to > produce a basic-but-functional implementation (sure, it might not have > many features that can't be implemented as a library defining macros > and procedures in terms of the core, but there's a lot of good work > you can do with that), or implementations with very small footprints. Agreed. -- Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old child John Cowan could understand this report. Run out [email protected] and find me a four-year-old child. I http://www.ccil.org/~cowan can't make head or tail out of it. --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
