On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Aaron W. Hsu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:31:58 -0400, Lynn Winebarger <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> This is why I see the view of Scheme as simply a static language as >> weird. > > Where does a static versus dynamic language have anything to do with > anything here? Scheme is dynamic, but I fail to see how this applies to > forcing the language to have a certain semantics regarding library locations > on the host machine.
My proposal intentionally omits any mention of "library locations on the host machine". It does acknowledge that the system must have some way of finding libraries that are referenced and gives the user the ability to guide, in a generic way, how the system searches and what it will find, without specifying any details about "where" in the underlying system. This implies nothing about "the environment in which a Scheme system must run" beyond what must exist if libraries can be imported at all. As for static vs dynamic, it's more like static as in "frozen on the page of the standard" versus a system which facilitates metaprogramming. `call/cc' is a metaprogramming feature, just as macros are, and as "library management" would be. Lynn _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
