On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 05:18 +0200, Michele Simionato wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Yoshikatsu Fujita > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Now, I understand it is not common, I will change the current > > descriptions('implicitly phased' and/or 'implicit-phased') to > > something like 'phase-less'. And of course, I'm going to study > > 'implicit phasing'. ;-) > > Phase-less would be even more confusing as it means > another thing
I agree "phase-less" is not appropriate because phases still exist. > to me Ypsilon is using > implicit phasing, it just lacks the import-on-demand semantics > of Ikarus, but this is visible to the user only in rare situations; > I have even argued in favore of the Ypsilon model. Michele, as you've demonstrated, you don't know what you're talking about. You seem determined to not learn in order to continue some pet fantasy. In R6RS, "phase" means *when* libraries are instantiated in order to accomplish a phase of expansion or execution. In implicit phasing, the phases are *implied* by where identifiers occur. In explicit phasing, the phases are explicitly specified. Implicit phasing does not mean only that the (for --- (meta ---)) import syntax is not required, it means that the phases when libraries are instantiated is implied. If libraries are always instantiated regardless of the phase of identifiers, it is not implicit phasing because what is implied is ignored, therefore the term "implicit" is inappropriate. I should never have used the term "on-demand" because what it actually is is the essence of implicit phasing: instantiation phases happening when identifiers imply they must. -- : Derick ----------------------------------------------------------------
