[plt-scheme] Native code generation and immutable pairs

From: Will M. Farr (farr at MIT.EDU)
Date: Fri Feb 10 11:31:24 EST 2006

On 10 Feb 2006, at 10:39 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:

> Please take a very close look at the constraints that
> bigloo modules impose on Scheme code. I am almost certain
> that these results do not carry over to other Scheme
> implementations.

As someone who is reasonably familiar with Bigloo, I think the only 
extra constraint that Bigloo modules place on the code (aside from 
handling syntax expansions very poorly compared to PLT-style modules) 
is that the module declaration allows for optional type declarations.  
Other than that, the "closed-world" assumptions required for type 
analysis are equivalent between the module systems.

Bigloo's module system is certainly less flexible than PLT's, 
particularly with regard to the initial language assumption and the 
renaming of bindings on export/import, but I don't think these 
differences would be relevant to type analysis.  On the other hand, I'm 
not an expert in language analysis, compilers, PLT or Bigloo, so take 
this with a grain of salt.


Posted on the users mailing list.