Andre van Tonder <andre_at_het.brown.edu> writes:
> So a Scheme program could in principle consist only of the name of a library
> to be invoked. How to supply this name might be
> implementation-dependent. The name could, for example, be a compiler
> argument.
>
> In a system that works this way, Scheme /programs/ can already be written
> independently of whether scripts exist in the specification or
> not.
Totally.
> The language in the report seems to be a little unsure whether
> "programs are scripts" or not.
I think the person who wrote the wording in question (not to mention
names here) probably used the word "program" by accident. It is my
interpretation that the intention was to avoid the word "program"
because it has connotations that should rather be avoided.
> Aren't scripts already toplevels? If they are, then toplevels are
> already clearly defined by r6rs (I would just remove the header). But
> maybe you are referring to REPL semantics. Unfortunately, no REPL can
> reproduce script semantics, due to the two-pass expansion algorithm of
> scripts.
Right. The R5RS toplevel was compatible with a REPL; scripts aren't.
So what I said I was sympathetic to was indeed to resurrect a toplevel
that would be compatible with a REPL.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Tue Oct 31 2006 - 11:57:18 UTC