Brian Mastenbrook scripsit: > * The semantics of an interactive top-level > * The semantics of reloading a changed version of a library into a > running image
I think this is fairly straightforward: When a procedure is redefined, existing calls may or may not be affected; When a macro is redefined, existing uses will not be affected; When a variable is redefined, existing uses will be affected; When a module is redefined, existing imports will not be affected; however, there needs to be an interactive mechanism to re-import modules. (Anybody have problems with these?) > [H]owever, if I'm facing a situation where N implementations each > provide roughly the same functionality with a slightly different name, > I'd rather just use a lexical tool like `feature-cond' instead of > having to create N different files. I think SRFI 0 cond-expand (to select the right individual code chunk) plus effectively include (to incorporate a whole file into that chunk) is the right toolkit. > (It would be a mistake to assume that this situation > won't ever arise. It has in the past and will again in the future.) Amen! -- When I'm stuck in something boring John Cowan where reading would be impossible or (who loves Asimov too) rude, I often set up math problems for [email protected] myself and solve them as a way to pass http://www.ccil.org/~cowan the time. --John Jenkins _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
