>>>>> "pax!" == pax! <pax@dedalo.ws> writes:
pax!> Now I'd want to do a suggestion. I can't understand why doing this
pax!> relatively simple thing has been so difficult. Loading files in
pax!> runtime is a relatively common task in interpreted languages, and a
pax!> very useful feature. IMHO this particular problem could have been
pax!> addresed with something like:
pax!> (load file (current-package))
pax!> or something similar. Is there something flawed from a scheme point of
pax!> view in my perspective or in my solution?
Yes there is. In the presence of modules, incrementally loading code
*into a module* after it's been initially defined is a semantically
complex operation: what's the effect on dependents if you change
bindings, for instance? Worse, what's the effect of redefining a
macro?
The module system of Scheme 48 is fairly unique in that it allows you
to do this at all. As I suggested, it would have been easier (and
semantically more sound) to just write your runtime-loaded files in
the module language.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
|