This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
> > > Jim suggested the name `(scheme-repl)' instead on the basis that a lot > > > of bindings will be useful only in a repl context. If no-one has > > > other ideas, I'll change `(user)' to `(scheme-repl)'. > > > > I use lots of the bindings in ice-9/slib.scm even in embedded applications. > > Besides, common lisp has CL-USER! > > I agree that scheme-repl is a bad name, as it will be the package that > users are placed in even in apps that don't have a repl. I'd recommend > (guile-user) on analogy with CL, or just stick with (user). Well, that's not exactly how I intended the scheme-repl module to be used. The idea was that each method of interaction --- REPL, script loading, or in some application-specific way --- would be responsible for creating a module that imported the appropriate things, to be used in whatever manner made sense. They would have names more appropriate to their purpose. For example, loading a script might get you a module named after the script (for consistency, if you also use that script as a loadable module from other scripts). However, I may be presuming a lot of infrastructure that isn't there yet. R5RS talks about the interaction environment; the exact name escapes me, but it seems like they're addressing the same issue, so we could borrow the naming convention with them. That way, there will be no surprises when we implement R5RS.