> > Sorry for being dense here, as I'm a bit out of touch, but which import > form are we talking about? I was under the impression that we cleared up > any questions of scoping and bindings for the import forms of libraries > and the like? I thought that with a library or other program, the import > forms were clearly static and outside of the scope of any environments > defined by those import forms? I thought that we made it explicit that > import forms and the like could appear in any order, as well. >
I think this is the main point: the syntax for libraries permit to distinguish between the static library language (consisting of import, include, begin, cond-expand, etc.) and the Scheme language (what's contained inside the begins). The syntax for programs has no way of distinguishing between the two different levels after the first import declaration. Therefore I think that more powerful import semantics for programs (including cond-expand, etc.) won't look too well until we have a second syntax for programs that mimics that for libraries. So for the way programs are currently written I see no advantage of more than one import declaration even for a future standard. Marc
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
