From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Noah Lavine Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Programming racket like in guile Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:36:39 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1787022.v0icS3ncxM@warperdoze> <2249304.rEEWIT33zp@warperdoze> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5430730f24e1f04d6661259 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1361633817 3753 80.91.229.3 (23 Feb 2013 15:36:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:36:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Stefan Israelsson Tampe Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 23 16:37:18 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U9H9w-0006OW-ED for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:37:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45152 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U9H9b-00005L-SW for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:36:47 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:47693) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U9H9W-00005C-RZ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:36:44 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U9H9V-0005my-H3 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:36:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-da0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:56167) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U9H9V-0005mr-8h for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:36:41 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-da0-f46.google.com with SMTP id p5so815446dak.33 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:36:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=LR6riI7Co1/7BXMCzrYsnxGs8F7conPbtVZe+o5HEiY=; b=ktAYDsH8ia43gmdTcG7xJifk2LFryNgFFQtp49/XOEYKVjmpINsMhgUI4Djl8sYxYE W/xAsdMHXg2UHhoSGVpCavxqikfRNXMuXHxpekduqbeRV+eIdd2khQy8/YC+eNwbBQhQ mjRwuWU/4RyE+OuSrmhfi8iICgTUDC6Lo1IZFHfJZ/TmdIwa8MAHJzAiM/AXyOF8v5uq 4kkiHcOP9tO1bHWwJUZ/CDb+DtOmPqwblqZQAifRXd+3HVzbQD+ClkiZhTqGs3ZPQ00o 0N75yZNulTI23dmzhzGZy+wE92ELZXWh/YSjGjEnIUCFPNu3DRkGO4FmI2QqANBIRbtA 4H7A== X-Received: by 10.68.49.97 with SMTP id t1mr8836705pbn.125.1361633799718; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:36:39 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.68.157.42 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:36:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2249304.rEEWIT33zp@warperdoze> X-Google-Sender-Auth: VoVhDanyyK7_FuRup2obZomBAuA X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.210.46 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:15814 Archived-At: --bcaec5430730f24e1f04d6661259 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 > > > --bcaec5430730f24e1f04d6661259 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That makes sense, but if the promotion ever happens, then = there might be a bunch of old code using (compat racket ...) that would nee= d to be converted, and we would have to keep the (compat racket ...) module= s around for compatibility with old code. If there's any possibility th= at 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 h= ave to change.

It's fine for language support to be incomplete. That= 9;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:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
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



--bcaec5430730f24e1f04d6661259--