"Alessandro Colomba" <acolomba@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> The new require-extension macro seems to be broken in CVS and,
> unfortunately, in SISC 1.13.5.
> Part of it is due to a typo in the require-lib macro,
Oops. Fixed in CVS.
> but there are a few things I don't understand about the new code:
>
> 1. Why does the [(_ (lib id0 id ...) clause ...) pattern in the
> require-extension macro contain "clause" at all? The reference SRFI-55
> macro uses quite a different pattern, and this "clause" doesn't seem
> to be used.
That's a bug. "clause" should get used. Fixed in CVS.
> 2. The new code seems to specify that the syntax should be:
>
> (require-extension (lib test/t))
Correct. The old syntax was not conforming to the spirit of srfi-55.
> Which a) is not backwards-compatible,
Correct.
> b) is not documented in the manual,
I forgot to update the manual. Apologies. Will do so later.
> c) does not seem to work anyway.
It does now, after I fixed the bug above.
> 3. Shouldn't require-extension allow a module to be have a name
> non-inclusive of its path, as per the current manual?
I don't think it should; unqualified module names only work in cases
where the namespace is controlled, as is the case for srfis.
Matthias
-------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
|
