Re: PLT Scheme development directions

[Mark Seaborn <mrs35@cam.ac.uk>]

Matthew Flatt <mflatt@cs.utah.edu> writes:

> We're currently working on the following two items:
> 
>  * Syntax (macros, program loading, compilation)
> 
>    MzScheme's lack of modular support for syntactic extension has
>    become a bottleneck in building new libraries and experimenting with
>    new language constructs. The situation with incompatible "debugging"
>    and "non-debugging" languages (both clumsy) has become intolerable.
> 
>    To address this problem, we're looking at a new module
>    language/layer that gracefully handles macros (real macros --- not
>    defmacro)

Presumably you mean hygienic macros like those in R5RS?

>    and other first-order entities (e.g., unit signatures).
>    The new syntax framework will be powerful enough to express
>    DrScheme's teaching languages, but accessible enough for everyday
>    Schemers. A compilation manager built around the module system will
>    let us to get rid of `require-library', `begin-elaboration-time',
>    and all the other related hacks.

Is there a forum in which I can discuss these changes with the PLT
Scheme developers?  I've written a portable implementation of core
units and signed units because I wanted to be able to write code using 
units and have a choice of Scheme implementations.  I'd like to keep
my implementation compatible with PLT Scheme.

I also have in mind a project for extending the units system to C: my
main motivation here is to make it easier for users to modify
software, as current Unix systems make you jump through too many hoops
to modify, say, a library like Gtk and then choose which programs you
want to use the modified version.  This is obviously going to need
units which export macros (and types too), so I'd like to be able to
keep my design along similar lines to yours.

-- 
         Mark Seaborn
   - mseaborn@bigfoot.com - http://members.xoom.com/mseaborn/ -

  ...And to everyone else, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys!