[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library"
6 hours ago, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Tue 05 Jul 2011 16:19, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> writes:
> > The rationale is that we want room for future extensions -
> > e.g. the ability to have an import-lazy declaration (i.e. autoload),
> > or first-class interfaces and units, or versioned libraries, etc.
> Unless I misunderstand, Ghuloum & Dybvig's implicit phasing
> effectively provides for autoloads, without having autoloads
> mentioned explicitly anywhere in the spec.
It's not really what you'd consider autoloads. The problem is that if
you don't mention any binding of a library that you require, then
there is no way to know which phase it should be instantiated at -- so
it's only instantiated when such a binding is encountered. It might
be possible to turn this into a kind of an autoload thing if you hack
some macro that mentions an identifier from a library only when a
function is used. But the price for that is that you can't really
have libraries that are imported only for their side-effects. (And
there's also the obvious price of implicit phases, which some consider
a benefit and some consider a bug.)
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Scheme-reports mailing list