This site is a static rendering of the Trac instance that was used by R7RS-WG1 for its work on R7RS-small (PDF), which was ratified in 2013. For more information, see Home.

Source for wiki Keywords version 1

author

alaric

comment

Summarised what little I know about the issues

ipnr

79.135.115.242

name

Keywords

readonly

text

There seems to be a serious issue with how we handle keywords (by which we mean, things like the `else` in `cond`). R5RS was vague on the matter, and each choice of implementation approach seems to have issues.

Let's summarise the issues with different approaches.

== Keywords as symbols ==

One approach is to say that the implementation of `cond` must match a symbol called `else` - so it's purely symbolic equality, rather than bothering about lexical environments.

Problems: See this thread: http://lists.scheme-reports.org/pipermail/scheme-reports/2011-May/000632.html

== Keywords as Bindings ==

Under this scheme, `else` is bound to something (a value? a macro? a pineapple?) along with the definition of `cond`, and we check that the same binding is in place when `else` is used in the wild.

This means that if we do:

{{{
(let ((else #f))
(cond
     (else 1))
}}}

...we'll get an error, not 1, as we've rebound `else`; that arm of the `cond` will evaluate `else` and get `#f`, so no arm of the `cond` matches.

However, it has another issue. Andy Wingo, I believe, gave an example of a module that exposes both `compile` (a procedure) and `eval-when` (a macro that uses `compile` as a keyword). It's then impossible to expose `eval-when` into a sandbox, still able to use the `compile` keyword, without then also giving them the `compile` procedure.

== Any others? ==

Please add alternative implementation techniques here, and discuss their problems and characteristics.

time

2011-05-05 03:57:22