Re: pre-200 MzScheme compatibility package

[Robert Bruce Findler <robby@cs.rice.edu>]

`require' has a different semantics than `require-library'. `require'
expects the file to contain a module and `require-library' didn't. So,
your definition of the `require-library' macro should probably expand
to load (and with some caching, like require-library used to do).

It is going to be quite tricky to maintain a single set of sources that
work in 103 and 199. I'm not sure how sucessful you are going to be, to
do that.

Robby

Quoting Alexey Mahotkin:
> >>>>> "MF" == Matthew Flatt <mflatt@cs.utah.edu> writes:
> 
>     >> Matthew Flatt may have prepared a guide for the 100->199
>     >> transition that he wants to share, I'm not sure.
> 
>     MF> plt/notes/mzscheme/MzScheme_200.txt contains (still growing)
>     MF> conversion notes.
> 
> 
> Ok, I've started writing compat.scm myself (is there a sense to
> publish it when it matures for inclusion into stock MzScheme?).
> 
> A question:  I've reimplemented `require-library' via 
> 
> 	(define-syntax require-library
> 	  (syntax-rules ()
> 			((require-library <library> <collection>)
> 			 ;;=>
> 			 (require (lib <library> <collection>)))))
> 
> 	(provide require-library)
> 
> 
> It works, but `(require-library "calendar.scm" "local")' gives:
> 
>   require: unknown module in: |,/usr/local/opt/local/bin/collects/local/calendar|
> 
> Yes, `calendar.scm' does not contain any module/unit stuff in it and
> is simply a sequence of `(define ...)'.
> 
> If I wrap that into (module ... ), it works, but I do not want to edit
> the files as we will use then with older MzScheme for some time yet.
> How could I implement `require' functionality with plain .scm files?
> 
> 
> Thank you, 
> 
> --alexm