From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Julian Graham Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: r6rs libraries Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:26:45 -0500 Message-ID: <2bc5f8210901280926o399f4505nc1d30c6017886a81@mail.gmail.com> References: <2bc5f8210812271705h3f57cb29w5bb83cb02abe971@mail.gmail.com> <2bc5f8210812282238p1f91f352id7eca5280dc9ff6a@mail.gmail.com> <2bc5f8210901012010g2ebb6effx5c966d0e26fe382b@mail.gmail.com> <8763kt48zi.fsf@gnu.org> <2bc5f8210901111521i1a5ec85em65ee20135cc55ebb@mail.gmail.com> <877i4z89jy.fsf@gnu.org> <2bc5f8210901251627t5d59f9fg5bc5dcceaf2a0b9f@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233164943 24730 80.91.229.12 (28 Jan 2009 17:49:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:49:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 28 18:50:17 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LSEY6-00023t-6Z for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:50:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43490 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LSEWo-0003hb-6s for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:48:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LSEBe-0003YE-AY for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:26:50 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LSEBa-0003Xe-MQ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:26:48 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54416 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LSEBa-0003XL-Dl for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:26:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-gx0-f20.google.com ([209.85.217.20]:58515) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LSEBa-0004W2-1g for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:26:46 -0500 Original-Received: by gxk13 with SMTP id 13so6191394gxk.18 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:26:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mL3wmL5E0R0OaDt99uYb6RQxKDuslhE0jERn7Q6HP8A=; b=aF7lQNlopJBZOc6lyM7slCtdnlwZ/vmQT70NP7vtyT5YHgAUs5f2FlJ1dnfTTBl9uZ hJMSW+C6rBXW4b0yN1AsolWKmoS9Ed6f3JKxz7iujwVSjjKxmClP/L/H6BwtiNAjrgCA r2ZGi3HaLxG4JGlHN1wcRuflS/n3roQpw4zBc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=wo9OdYwU39FblVEEufEaJ/u+utkn25DILaNRpmEd+TA6dg7NmlIw/qh35JDinh4/f9 wXqmwvZ+WTm3PTYtfcLZDfgjdYVaEGePcBzVwE6lWDLecupv8Rg3wJWUSC9EUJJDp4ov qokSwUTZq0LOPH2dsoWsbmaf1KkhRkV3NkObA= Original-Received: by 10.150.12.10 with SMTP id 10mr2357299ybl.72.1233163605226; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:26:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:8101 Archived-At: Hi Andy, Thanks so much for helping me parse! > I think you're right, yes. I think that the approach that you describe > has been called "Implicit phasing" by Ghuloum and Dybvig. They have a > paper about it, "Implicit phasing in R6RS libraries" -- but I haven't > been able to find it freely on the web. ACM fail. Oooh -- if you do find it, let me know. That sounds interesting. > I could not find the quote that you referred to here -- I think what I > can tell (from 7.2): (Yes, that was the bit I was referring to. Sorry about that.) One thing that occurred to me, though, while I was brooding on this, is the case in which you've got two bindings that share the same name that are both imported (from different libraries) into library foo -- one's a syntax transformer used to expand library foo, the other's a function used by library foo at runtime. R6RS seems designed to address cases like this so that they work out, you know, hygienically. And I think Guile's module system can handle this as well, though it may require some slightly weird designs. E.g., one thing I was thinking of trying was mapping an R6RS library onto *two* generated Guile modules: One to represent the expansion environment, and one to represent the environment of the expanded library in which the library bindings and top-level expressions are actually evaluated (I guess this is the same as the runtime environment?). The first module's imports would include bindings required for expansion; the second's would include the stuff for runtime. > I don't think you're missing anything big, no. I hadn't fully poked into > these implementations -- if it is easier just to build something on top > of Guile's modules than to retrofit guile's modules into one of their > implementations, then that's all the better, right? Strongly agree. Regards, Julian