At Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:43:42 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > At Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:08:19 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > >> 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. > > > > Ah --- I had not actually looked at 9587a2f. > > > > I guess I'm confused on the goal, since I don't see changing `mzscheme' > > to `scheme/mzscheme' as a step forward. Can you say more about the > > intent of changing `mzscheme' to `scheme/mzscheme'? > > The intent is to reduce the API surface area provided by the core. > Note that `scheme/mzscheme` is not a documented API. Thus, moving the > `mzscheme` language and collection would require anyone who depended > on them to explicitly depend on another package. At some later point, > we finish implementing the core without using `scheme/mzscheme`, move > the actual implementation of `mzscheme` to the `mzscheme` package, > without any compatibility problems.
I see what you mean, but it feels wrong to me that `scheme/mzscheme' exists and isn't documented. I'd prefer to work toward getting it in the right package and documented. > > Meanwhile, I worry that options 1 and 3 can create subtle and confusing > > bugs/incompatibilities. (I've spent a lot of time on problems that > > happened due to accidentally choosing similar options in the past.) > > (1) definitely has the potential for subtle bugs. I believe that (3) > is semantics preserving *except* insofar as some part of the core was > using the `mzscheme` namespace creation functions, and would thus work > differently. However, there are only two places in the core that use > `make-namespace` from `mzscheme`. They are (a) the `setup/unpack` > code using `eval` that you plan to remove and (b) a part of > `compiler/private/xform.rkt` for loading precompiled headers. I don't > know what the latter does, or if changing it to use a Racket namespace > would have the potential to introduce bugs. > > But yes, there's definitely a worry about subtle bugs here. There's also the issue that `scheme/mzscheme' introduces an `for-syntax' import of `scheme/mzscheme', and not a `for-syntax' import of `mzscheme', so `make-base-namespace' would disappear from phase 1 in `mzscheme' --- if I'm following correctly. So, I think option 2 is right for now, and we should eventually spend cycles on really getting `mzscheme' out of the core. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev