On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:49:51 -0400, Brian Harvey <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> That's not import, it's load.
>
> I vote no on having three things (LOAD, IMPORT, INCLUDE) all of which
> have
> almost the same meaning, when one will do.
But they don't have the same meanings. LOAD happens at run-time, and thus,
it is impossible for a compiler to reason about the code being loaded at
compile time. This is a feature and a disadvantage, which is why INCLUDE
exists. IMPORT is not about files, it's about loading sets of definitions
and expressions with a given interface into the current definition
context. That's if IMPORT is just a syntactic form. Otherwise is just a
specification of dependencies in a library package format, which is also
valid, and definitely not LOAD.
> The perceived need for three of them is evidence of a design problem; it
> feels more like piling feature on top of feature than like removing
> restrictions.
Explain how you can combine the dynamic nature of LOAD with the static
nature of INCLUDE?
Aaron W. Hsu
--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
