On Tue 06 Dec 2011 01:36, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> writes:
>> I guess in general I'd prefer something like Racket's #!lang directives, >> though I'm not opposed to this approach. Dunno! > > How about using language directives when available, and trying to > guess the language when not? I'm fine with this, FWIW. > And about the directives, what should they be? ',language' is what we > used to use at the REPL, and I was about to write an email arguing for > that, until I realized that there is one big advantage to using the > same thing as Racket - we might actually share some languages. ,language would be pretty cute, but I don't think it would work, as it reads as (unquote language), and who knows what the binding of `unquote' would be. > Specifically, if someone had a Scheme file that started with '#!lang > r5rs', it's possible that Guile and Racket could both run that file > without modification. That seems pretty cool. Yes, I agree, that would be nice. Perhaps we could even convince other implementations that this is the right thing. > Mixing other languages could be scary though. Indeed :) Regards, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
