[plt-scheme] Reexpansion of modules

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?

>  -- 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.

-- 
Jens Axel Søgaard