Re: summary: lilypond, lambda, and local-eval

[David Kastrup]

Let me first state that this thread is arguing at a depth where the only
contributions that remain for me to make are syllogisms without an
actual knowledge of what I am talking about.

In order not to appear ungrateful, I will do that, but there will be
little point in expecting me to be of assistance in judging their merit.

Noah Lavine <address@hidden> writes:

> If I understand correctly, Mark wants to restrict the set of variables
> you can access to those you could access through normal Scheme code.
> This is an issue because psyntax happens to provide a way to access
> more variables than standard Scheme. If this is the case, I think we
> should absolutely restrict it to standard Scheme, because letting you
> access everything psyntax can access a) is not Scheme and b) restricts
> our future implementation choices.

If psyntax accesses more than Scheme can access while doing a task that
is worth doing, what chance would there be in giving Scheme the power to
access what psyntax can?

If exporting enough of the compiler environment to be useful for
implementing multiple compilation units sharing lexical environments is
feasible, what are the implications for splitting a compilation into
separate units when the extent of psyntax is not similarly involved?

In short: where should one draw the line in a way that makes best use of
already done compilations without having to redo too much to be of
practical use?

> In general, this thread has been very, very impressive.  Thanks a lot
> to everyone who has been working so hard on this.

Agreed.

-- 
David Kastrup