Re: Programming racket like in guile

[Noah Lavine]

That makes sense, but if the promotion ever happens, then there might be a bunch of old code using (compat racket ...) that would need to be converted, and we would have to keep the (compat racket ...) modules around for compatibility with old code. If there's any possibility that we will want to rename it to (language racket ...), I think we should do it right now, in the beginning, so that users of those modules don't have to change.

It's fine for language support to be incomplete. That's how (language ecmascript) is right now.

Best,

Noah

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <address@hidden> wrote:

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 08:54:09 AM Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> For those parts specific to racket, did you consider the (language
> racket ..) namespace, where an eventual language definition could be
> placed also?

Hmm, my problem with this is that to cover the racket lang is a
monumental effort because it covers such things like imutable cons
cells a new macrology system, a new module system etc. It would take
me forever to actually complete anything close to #lang
racket. Therefore I prefere to call it a compatibility module. The
idea is to minimize the work needed to port code written in racket to
guile. If we than mange after some significant time to repreoduce
#:lan racket we can of cause promote this module to (language
racket). Does this make sense?

/Stefan