[<<][staapl][>>][..]
Sun Dec 16 11:19:16 CET 2007

static composition and extension

i chose for a hierarchical dictionary as the main means of program
extension. the way it is used is not dynamic binding, but 1. postponed
static binding and 2. cache of a linear dictionary.

as a consequence, it can probably be completely replaced by mzscheme's
module composition approach, together with some means (units?) to
solve circular dependencies and plugin behaviour.

however, i see no point in changing this until the dependency on the
method that implements this linking part can be abstracted
away. currently that seems problematic, because the name store is
everywhere: it is the backbone of the system.

i find it very difficult to see what is the right thing to do
here. 1. i'm not using abstraction mechanisms provided by mzscheme to
do namespace management, which makes me miss some static/dynamic
checks, and is in general just a bad idea. 2. my approach is more
lowlevel so flexible to shuffle it around and find the right
abstraction. the thing is i'm not sure yet if i need this flexibility
(over the built in functionality).

the only way to really resolve the ignorance is to implement a toy
project which doesn't use the global namespace, and only uses mzscheme
units and modules.


[Reply][About]
[<<][staapl][>>][..]