Sorry, yes, I meant `module`. I've been thinking about R6RS so much that
for a moment I lost track of what Chicken's conventions are.
I would point to rename-on-export. Chicken doesn't support this, and
neither does the R7RS-egg. Most of the time, Scheme programmers do fine
without it, but when
> Yes, that's what I mean. It would be fine if foo/bar.sld and foo.bar.scm
> would accept either `library` or `define-library`.
>
You mean "module" or "define-library", I guess? One could make the
latter available by default. Depending on how we decide on default
semantics for syntax-rules,
Yes, that's what I mean. It would be fine if foo/bar.sld and foo.bar.scm
would accept either `library` or `define-library`.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 4:15 PM wrote:
> > I think making r7 syntax by default makes sense as does define- library.
> > Using sld would be good if (foo bar) imported from
> I think making r7 syntax by default makes sense as does define- library.
> Using sld would be good if (foo bar) imported from foo/bar.sld and not
> foo.bar.scm.
>
How is supposed to be coded? Would that mean foo/bar.sld holds
a library definition of this sort:
(define-library (foo bar)
I think making r7 syntax by default makes sense as does define- library.
Using sld would be good if (foo bar) imported from foo/bar.sld and not
foo.bar.scm.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023, 2:36 PM wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> John Cowan suggested to add R7RS support to the CHICKEN core
> in the forthcoming
Hello!
John Cowan suggested to add R7RS support to the CHICKEN core
in the forthcoming version 6. It certainly is about time to
commit a bit more to R7RS (small), since it is, as a standard,
reasonably established now. The current mode of support as an
egg works quite well, but still feels a
