Robby pointed you to chapter 15 in the Guide, which is what I was going to do, but here are a few extra answers:
At Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:58:52 -0600, Richard Cleis wrote: > Given a file of "some-scheme.rxt": > > ********************* > ;#lang racket > > (define a-var 'a-val) > ********************* > > and a program in a definitions window: > > ********************* > #lang racket > > (define (f) (load "some-scheme.rkt")) > ;(f) > ********************* > > ... Entering (f) in the interactions window defines a-var. Right --- evaluating `(f)' has the side-effect of defining `a-var' in the current namespace, such as the namespace is the one that is active for the REPL in DrRacket. > If the comment is removed from ;#lang racket, a-var is not defined. Where > did > it go? If the file starts `#lang racket', then it declares a module. The `a-var' definition is inside the module. Also, `load' simply loads the module declaration without actually instantiating the module. > If the comment is removed from ;(f), an 'unbound identifier' error is > triggered during the Run. The `load' function performs a run-time action. The expansion/compilation of the program containing `(f)' doesn't look at "some-scheme.rkt", because that doesn't happen later when/if `(f)' is evaluated. > How can I explain where (load) evaluates it's contents? Chapter 15 covers that one. > Does (load) have a future in racket? As Robby says, `load' has no place as a substitute for `require'; it's just a variant of `eval' that pulls expressions from a file. There are times when you want to script a sequence of `eval's, `load's, and others side-effects on a namespace; `#lang racket/load' can help with that. Chapter 15 explains more, including some reasons why `racket/load' is usually a bad idea. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
