I suspect that if you want to know about Arc's design goals, then pg's writings at http://www.paulgraham.com/arc.html is a better source than various random interpretations floating around on the forums.
Agreed. I do hope, however, that arc.v4.0 is structured in such away to move away from being news.arc centric. I hope pg chooses a different project to push down on arc. I think this would open the door to a fresh perspective.
Well, MzScheme's eval lets you pass in a namespace. Now a namespace is not a lexical environment. It's simply a collection of names and values. Arc uses one MzScheme namespace for its top-level environment. It would be pretty easy for you to create your own namespace and eval Arc expressions in that namespace, so that they'd see a different "top-level" environment than the main program does. However that's not going to give you access to lexical variables.
Not to worry, I myself have often ranted on some forum or another and the next day said "oops" :-)
Is there a particular open source license (or putting it in the public domain) that you're releasing your code under? I ask because I had earlier thought of doing something similar, though I hadn't started work yet. If you happened to be releasing your code under a license that I myself might not be able to use such as the GPL, then I'd want to make sure I didn't look at your source to avoid the possibility or appearance of copyright infringement if I did get around to doing my own implementation someday.
Initially planned to release under GPL but it's too tiny to merit it, and after me being a moron, it would be too much.
Consider it is public domain. Use it for whatever you want.
Heck, let's be chauvinistic. Let's say it's officially under the WTFPL - DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/), which is basically public domain. Quoting the license link:
Isn’t this license basically public domain?
There is no such thing as “putting a work in the public domain”, you America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual. Public domain varies with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether someone who has not been dead for the last seventy years is entitled to put his own work in the public domain.
Edit: I had suggested the Creative Commons CC0 license, but the Creative Commons FAQ says:
Can I license software using CC licenses?
We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative. Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software.
More seriously, thanks for the link, good to know.
But for evsrv, don't worry too much about the license. Use it if you find it useful and this is all. I promise I will not sue you about it :-D!
Also seriously, despite its name, the WTFPL is no BS. As said on the license link, it's actually used, although rarely, for "serious" software, the type you can find in your favourite Linux/*BSD repositories. And the FSF recognizes it as a valid FOSS license (but not the OSI, I think).
I think I may be able to clear up a bit of confusion here.
All (almost all?) of the code related to Arc so far has been released as open source by various authors, including rntz's extensive work with Anarki.
Thus when code hasn't been released, it's been because the author doesn't think it's good enough yet, instead of because the author wants to keep it proprietary.
So when one of us sees something cool, it's not uncommon for us to say, "oooh, we'd like to see the source to that!" Not as a request to give away something proprietary, but to say that if someone has code that they'll be making open source anyway, to encourage them to go ahead and release it, because it looks cool.