On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > At Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:38:03 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Robby Findler >> <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: >> > Did you consider moving "#lang mzscheme" out as well? >> >> I've now created another pull request that does this, here: >> https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/377 >> >> There's one remaining question. The `make-base-namespace` procedure >> provided by `mzscheme` attaches the `mzscheme` module. But this pull >> request removes that module, so it can't be attached or required in >> this code. The alternatives are: >> >> 1. Just attach/require `scheme/mzscheme`. Slightly incompatible in >> some corner cases. >> 2. Don't remove `mzscheme` from the core. >> 3. Remove `make*-namespace` from `scheme/mzscheme` and implement them >> in the `mzscheme` collection in the `mzscheme` package. >> >> I'm currently leaning toward 3 but I'd appreciate anyone else's thoughts. > > Is there some reason that `scheme/mzscheme' can't move to the > "mzscheme" package (along with `racket/private/stxmz-body')?
Because large portions of the core are written in the `mzscheme` language (or `scheme/mzscheme`, after my patch), some of which feature evaluating code in mzscheme-like namespaces. If we can somehow get around the latter problem, then the former is a Small Matter of Programming, but it'll take a little while. Sam _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev