Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
> Ah, very good. A nice list. I like the simple generic names "string",
> "list". It would be nice to have some hierarchical naming for core
> modules, what do you think about "chicken.string", "chicken.list"
> etc. (even though I prefer the plural form, that is, "strings")?
+1 on all these points. I too prefer the plural, but the R7RS WG voted
for the singular.
> In R7RS that would map to "(chicken string)" and so on. I can't remember
> whether we have considered "list"-syntax for module names yet.
+1 to implementing that (note that the lists can only contain symbols
and exact non-negative integers). If the following are done:
* list syntax for module names
* auto-loading by `import`
* accept `include-library-declarations` as an alias for `include`
* accept (define-library ...) as an alias for (module () ...)
then R7RS libraries can be accepted, at least syntactically, *by the
core*. (The converse will not be true, of course.) I think this is
a tremendous advantage, and in fact I got some restrictions loosened
specifically so that Chicken would be able to process R7RS libraries
natively.
> There is some ambiguity with that, when import-modifiers come into
> play...
The R7RS-small committee thought about that, and decided that people
who name their modules (only this) or (except that) deserve to lose.
In short, the import-modifiers are much more important than the ability
to use four particular words in library names.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected]
First known example of political correctness: After Nurhachi had united
all the other Jurchen tribes under the leadership of the Manchus, his
successor Abahai (1592-1643) issued an order that the name Jurchen should
be banned, and from then on, they were all to be called Manchus.
--S. Robert Ramsey, The Languages of China
_______________________________________________
Chicken-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
