On Sep 10, 2009, at 3:20 PM, John Cowan wrote: > 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?)
What do you mean by procedure redefinition, and how does it differ from variable redefinition? If I re-load a library, am I creating a fresh set of syntactic bindings, or altering the existing set? >> [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. I agree. -- Brian Mastenbrook [email protected] http://brian.mastenbrook.net/ _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
