Re: Programming racket like in guile

[Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1462 bytes --]

That makes sense, but if the promotion ever happens, then there might be a
bunch of old code using (compat racket ...) that would need to be
converted, and we would have to keep the (compat racket ...) modules around
for compatibility with old code. If there's any possibility that we will
want to rename it to (language racket ...), I think we should do it right
now, in the beginning, so that users of those modules don't have to change.

It's fine for language support to be incomplete. That's how (language
ecmascript) is right now.

Best,
Noah



On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.itampe@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, February 23, 2013 08:54:09 AM Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> > For those parts specific to racket, did you consider the (language
> > racket ..) namespace, where an eventual language definition could be
> > placed also?
>
> Hmm, my problem with this is that to cover the racket lang is a
> monumental effort because it covers such things like imutable cons
> cells a new macrology system, a new module system etc. It would take
> me forever to actually complete anything close to #lang
> racket. Therefore I prefere to call it a compatibility module. The
> idea is to minimize the work needed to port code written in racket to
> guile. If we than mange after some significant time to repreoduce
> #:lan racket we can of cause promote this module to (language
> racket). Does this make sense?
>
> /Stefan
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2018 bytes --]