[plt-dev] #lang: the stake in Dracula's heart?

From: Matthew Flatt (mflatt at cs.utah.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 1 12:51:51 EST 2010

At Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:13:40 -0500, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> (Pardon the overly dramatic title, this is probably a far-off concern
> right now, but the pun was irresistible.)
> I know we are trying to make #lang into our primary "language level"
> mechanism; this is a good thing.  My question to the other developers
> is: are we trying to make it our only mechanism?  Are there plans to
> abandon other methods of language specification?
> As the Dracula maintainer, this is crucial to me.  Dracula can only
> cooperate with ACL2 if source files are readable by both.  If we go to
> #lang-only modules, ACL2 will not be able to read files written in
> Dracula, as it does not understand `#lang planet cce/dracula', and
> Dracula will not be able to read ACL2's libraries, as `(in-package
> "ACL2")' is not a #lang specification.
> What are our plans for non-#lang languages and compatibility with
> other compilers, in the foreseeable future?

I don't think that we will get rid of dialog-based language selection
completely. We should get away from it as much as possible, but maybe
that doesn't include ACL2.

One other possibility is to use a file extension. I don't like
depending on extensions, but it's the one general way that systems
offer to designate a file type. We could treat file extensions in a
similar way to `#lang' declarations. If we did that, would using an
".acl2" extension (or whatever the right extension) be a good way
indicate an ACL2 source?

Posted on the dev mailing list.