On Saturday, February 23, 2013 08:54:09 AM Daniel Hartwig wrote: > For those parts specific to racket, did you consider the (language > racket ..) namespace, where an eventual language definition could be > placed also?
Hmm, my problem with this is that to cover the racket lang is a monumental effort because it covers such things like imutable cons cells a new macrology system, a new module system etc. It would take me forever to actually complete anything close to #lang racket. Therefore I prefere to call it a compatibility module. The idea is to minimize the work needed to port code written in racket to guile. If we than mange after some significant time to repreoduce #:lan racket we can of cause promote this module to (language racket). Does this make sense? /Stefan
