[R6RS] proposed library/syntax-case changes
sperber at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
Mon Aug 28 10:47:05 EDT 2006
dyb at cs.indiana.edu writes:
> * flush "for eval". Aziz pointed out correctly that requiring "for eval"
> to be present in the library header effectively prevents people from the
> full freedom to exercise functionality that is present in most other
> languages, like C (with dlopen/dlsym) and Perl (with dynamically loaded
> modules), putting Scheme at a competitive disadvantage. This means, for
> example, that we can't implement a Linux-like kernel or Apache-like web
> server with dynamically loadable modules. We can't even use the system
> to implement a portable interactive Scheme REPL and interpreter with
> dynamically loaded libraries.
Arguably, `eval' is completely the wrong mechanism to use for
implementing this kind of functionality. I don't understand the
consequences of this change---what libraries will then be available
for use with `eval'. You say:
> For the many applications that don't use eval, removing the "for eval"
> declaration and corresponding restriction does not impact an
> implementation's ability to generate self-contained applications.
But it seems fairly obvious that a self-contained application *will*
impose restrictions. Or am I missing something important?
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
More information about the R6RS