[Scheme-reports] Import declarations in programs
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(21 Jan 2014 11:25 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Import declarations in programs
Jim Rees
(21 Jan 2014 19:01 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Import declarations in programs
Alex Shinn
(21 Jan 2014 22:40 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Import declarations in programs arcfide@sacrideo.us (22 Jan 2014 00:31 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Import declarations in programs
Alex Shinn
(22 Jan 2014 00:39 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Import declarations in programs
arcfide@sacrideo.us
(22 Jan 2014 20:26 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Import declarations in programs
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(22 Jan 2014 11:02 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Import declarations in programs
arcfide@sacrideo.us
(22 Jan 2014 20:23 UTC)
|
Alex Shinn <alexshinn@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Jim Rees <jimreesma@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen < >> marc.nieper@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 1) Why is more than one import declaration allowed in a Scheme program? >>> >> >> This looks like a residual outcome where it was left open in >> http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/ticket/473 until the resolution of 472 (on >> whether include,include-ci,cond-expand could expand into import forms). >> The decision there ended up being a "no" from how I read it - so the only >> motivation for permitting multiple import declarations seemed to vanish >> there, but I guess tightening the spec down got lost in the shuffle. Maybe >> there was yet another motivation? >> > > Good research. Yes, multiple imports are no longer > needed and can be ambiguous. I think the only > motivation for this would be the hope that a future standard > would allow top-level includes and cond-expands to expand > into imports. > > In the meantime, the solution to avoid ambiguity is > easy - if you import an `import', make sure you do it > last. This is trivially satisfied by only ever using one > import form. Sorry for being dense here, as I'm a bit out of touch, but which import form are we talking about? I was under the impression that we cleared up any questions of scoping and bindings for the import forms of libraries and the like? I thought that with a library or other program, the import forms were clearly static and outside of the scope of any environments defined by those import forms? I thought that we made it explicit that import forms and the like could appear in any order, as well. There are plenty of motivations for using multiple import forms, but I just want to make sure I understand the complaint? I thought that we very intentionally kept and allowed multiple import and export forms? -- Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us לֵ֤ב חֲכָמִים֙ בְּבֵ֣ית אֵ֔בֶל וְלֵ֥ב כְּסִילִ֖ים בְּבֵ֥ית שִׂמְחָֽה׃ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports