[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Trivial Enhancement of macros in v5.91: capture-syntax

From: Andre van Tonder <andre>
Date: Thu Nov 30 14:13:42 2006

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, William D Clinger wrote:

> If you are suggesting that some implementors will use some
> non-R6RS language as their systems programming language, then
> we are in complete agreement on that. If R6RS Scheme were
> to require separated binding, invoke-separately-for-each-phase
> semantics, then *all* implementors would be likely to use
> some non-R6RS language as their systems programming language.

I don't think so, since I only need one continuous run, in one phase, of my
expander in the system language (which can be in r6rs with either semantics) to
simulate all the phases in the object language. The phases in the object
language are completely unrelated to the ones of the system language. In the
simplest case, one can think of the expander as an interpreter, which can
be invoked once per session for a continuous run in a single phase. It should
be clear that the phases, like any other aspect of the semantics, of the
interpreted language are completely under the control of the interpreter
writer, and completely independent of the phases, if any, of the language in
which the interpreter is written.

Andre
Received on Thu Nov 30 2006 - 14:12:59 UTC