On Sep 17, 2009, at 3:55 AM, Derick Eddington wrote:
> I recently said this to someone else:
>
> I'm willing to continue using "explicit phasing" to keep my
> code
> portable and to gain more experience with it. So far (2
> years),
> I've become more convinced I like "implicit phasing" better. I
> think a better compromise would be that imports without level
> declarations are always "implicit phasing" and imports with
> level declarations are always verified (which I suppose would
> always require declarations for level 0 to verify that only
> level 0 is used, and I see that as more consistent with the
> purpose of "explicit phasing"), instead of the current
> compromise where "implicit phasing" style is not portable and
> "explicit phasing" style is ignored by some systems and so not
> portable according to the authors' intent -- this way both
> sides can do it their way *and* be portable.
From my part, I believe this idea is worth pursuing. I have thought
about it from time to time (so, it's always stewing in my back burner)
and I have not yet found a way to make them work. By work I mean
1. By declaring phases, you always get the same behavior as you would
in current explicit-phasing systems.
2. By not declaring phases, you always get the same behavior as you
would in current implicit-phasing systems.
3. Make sense of what happens when you mix and match.
I think there's hope. I'd like to know what the experts of explicit
phasing think. Would this be workable?
Aziz,,,
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
