ri...@happyleptic.org writes: >> > and that other programs that use Guile for extension will run into >> > similar difficulties, but as far as I can tell Lilypond is quite >> > unique here. >> >> Because nobody else uses Guile for serious extensions. And not because >> of its performance: that is _irrelevant_ for most extension purposes. >> The performance angle is interesting when one uses Guile as a general >> purpose _programming_ language. You are sacrificing your target >> clientele here. > > Obviously Guile does not suffer from too many users right now, but > stating that Lilypond is the only project using Guile seriously seams > a little excessive.
_As_ _an_ _extension_ _language_ rather than as a mostly independent subsystem. > Be confident that I'm ashamed by my ignorance but I do not know how > exactly Lilypond uses Guile (nor what Lilypond exactly does), but your > description of it does sound like it's the only way to "extend" a > program. Not at all. But when we are talking about an _extension_ _language_, the implication is that it works in bits and pieces where it is convenient. That it _integrates_ with a larger system. Lexical environments are a fundamental part of what integration may involve, and they operate at a different level as modules. Macros play _into_ lexical environments, so obviously Scheme itself recognizes the importance of being able to extend. -- David Kastrup
