At Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:13:40 -0500, Carl Eastlund wrote: > (Pardon the overly dramatic title, this is probably a far-off concern > right now, but the pun was irresistible.) > > I know we are trying to make #lang into our primary "language level" > mechanism; this is a good thing. My question to the other developers > is: are we trying to make it our only mechanism? Are there plans to > abandon other methods of language specification? > > As the Dracula maintainer, this is crucial to me. Dracula can only > cooperate with ACL2 if source files are readable by both. If we go to > #lang-only modules, ACL2 will not be able to read files written in > Dracula, as it does not understand `#lang planet cce/dracula', and > Dracula will not be able to read ACL2's libraries, as `(in-package > "ACL2")' is not a #lang specification. > > What are our plans for non-#lang languages and compatibility with > other compilers, in the foreseeable future?
I don't think that we will get rid of dialog-based language selection completely. We should get away from it as much as possible, but maybe that doesn't include ACL2. One other possibility is to use a file extension. I don't like depending on extensions, but it's the one general way that systems offer to designate a file type. We could treat file extensions in a similar way to `#lang' declarations. If we did that, would using an ".acl2" extension (or whatever the right extension) be a good way indicate an ACL2 source? _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
