[plt-scheme] Reexpansion of modules

From: Matthias Felleisen (matthias at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Mon Aug 21 16:12:04 EDT 2006

On Aug 21, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:

> Matthias Felleisen skrev:
>> 1. I considered the idea of developing larceny modules inside of  
>> DrS back in 2002. Then I learned more about Larceny and how small  
>> it is. And we didn't have Eli's FFI yet for integrating Lareceny- 
>> compiled modules back into PLT Scheme. Now this idea is worth  
>> studying because you don't want to use Larceny for anything else  
>> than ASM. But perhaps at that level it has value! (I'll talk to  
>> Eli next week on this.)
>> 2. Yes, we could expand PLT Scheme to PLT Scheme [core] first but  
>> even in this core language you have so many library calls and  
>> extensions, resolution of semantic issues, etc, that NOW WATCH
>>  -- compiling the rest in Larceny is either impossible or
> Is it with-continuation-mark you are thinking of?

Actually Ryan moved that one into Larceny. But then there are  
regexps, custodians, wills (not lower-case W), executioners,  
inspectors, lieutenants, captains, majors, generals, and a few more  

>>  -- it doesn't produce code that is faster than PLT Scheme and  
>> faithful to its semantics.
> In a Larceny-as-ASM world it makes sense to tolerate a slightly
> different semantics to gain speed.

Are you willing to get #t instead of #f? 5 instead of 42? 'hello  
instead of "world"? -- Matthias

Posted on the users mailing list.