AndrevanTonder wrote: > Local imports: Should shadowing take place in either of the two > imports below? > With e.g. Oleg's solution, shadowing would take place due to at least > one, and > maybe both, let-bindings. > > (let ((r6rs 1) > (base 2)) > (local-import (r6rs)) > (local-import (r6rs base)) > ....)
The assumption in the example I gave was that in an expression like (local-import (---)), it would make sense to treat the --- as literal names. A non-literal reference to a library could then be represented by replacing the (---) with a single identifier, and that identifier would have previously been bound to a suitably constructed value. So in the above, no shadowing would occur. > Local libraries: Assuming they have compound names also, presumably this > could be made to shadow, but it would require an extension to the > expander so that > it can bind not only identifiers but compound objects: > > (let () > (library (r6rs base) ------) > (local-import (r6rs base)) > ----) I think Mike's point is a good one: a local module has different naming requirements from top-level libraries. In general, local module-like capabilities may end up being somewhat orthogonal to the current library mechanism. PLT's units mechanism provides a kind of example of this. Anton _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
