On Sep 11, 2009, at 10:17 AM, David Van Horn wrote: > John Cowan wrote: >> Brian Mastenbrook scripsit: >>> Evaluating arbitrary Scheme at expansion time brings several >>> issues into play that would not exist otherwise: phasing >>> semantics, the interaction between phases and binding visibility, >>> and the necessity of having an interpreter in an otherwise cross- >>> compiler-only implementation. >> *Exactly* why I don't want it in Thing One. > > I have made the same suggestion on this mailing list. (Although I > don't buy the bit about the need for an interpreter).
My statement was phrased very carefully: if the host does not fully expand macros (because it isn't capable of interpreting the Scheme code they are expressed in), the implementation must include a means of interpretation on the client. Either way, it is not a cross- compiler-only implementation. -- Brian Mastenbrook [email protected] http://brian.mastenbrook.net/ _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
