[plt-scheme] Reexpansion of modules

From: Jens Axel Søgaard (jensaxel at soegaard.net)
Date: Mon Aug 21 17:07:41 EDT 2006

Matthias Felleisen skrev:
> 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 friends.

I'd be content with much less. Plain R5RS would be fine for, say,
number and string calculations, e.g. an md5 computation. Well, maybe
throw in some records. I still imagine the majority of the program
to be normal MzScheme, and only write a few time critical functions
in Larceny.

>>>  -- 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


Jens Axel Søgaard

Posted on the users mailing list.