On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:42:30PM -0400, Lynn Winebarger wrote: > What does it profit the scheme user for the standard to stick > its head in the sand about the reality that their programs exist in a stateful > environment? Is this about being a "language" and not a > "system"? If there's some other reason for this separation, please > enlighten me.
Personally, I would *vastly* prefer that my language did *not* assume that it existed in a stateful environment. In many, many projects that use that other popular language, I get a lot of benefit from being able to specify the paths where included and linked files should be found on the compiler command line. In particular, that allows me to produce variant versions (for different target platforms, usually) without having to clutter up the source code with conditional compilation directives and unused blocks of code. I know that that's not the way that the "always in a REPL" folk work, but I'm sure that there must be some sort of equivalent that can be as useful. Even if it's just a question of having a SCHEME-PATH variable that can be re-defined if necessary. Cheers, -- Andrew _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
