Re: API for introduction of bindings

[Michael Livshin]

Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden writes:
> 
> > At 17 Dec 2000 20:00:38 +0100,
> > Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> > > 
> > > I suggest that we instead focus on the problem of dividing the current
> > > set of bindings into a nice hierarchy of modules, like
> > > "(core safe-r5rs)", "(core r5rs)", etc.  (I think Maciej and Jim had a
> > > preliminary proposal, Maciej? Jim?)
> > 
> > I'd prefer modules like "(core list)", "(core string)", etc. according
> > to their functionality rather than standards.  We can build standard
> > modules like "(scheme r5rs)" by importing the core modules and exporting
> > necessary bindings, right?
> 
> That's certainly possible.
> 
> Is this useful?  (It's not meant as a rhetoric question.)

not to the end-users, IMHO.  but in the implementation -- maybe.
perhaps it would make building different Scheme dialect modules
easier.

like:

(dialect R4RS):    (...)
(dialect iScheme): ((dialect R4RS) (core GOOPS) ...)
(dialect R5RS):    ((dialect R4RS) (core macro-system) (core dynwind))
(dialect Guile):   ((dialect R5RS) (core syntax-case) (core modules) ...)

I'm not sure things like list or string primitives need to be
segregated, though.

-- 
There are few personal problems which can't be solved by the suitable
application of high explosives.