On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 05:16 -0600, Eduardo Cavazos wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 01:00 -0600, Eduardo Cavazos wrote: > > > > I think the "right thing" is: > > > > > > (library (xyz) > > > > > > (export xyz) > > > > > > (import (rnrs)) > > > > > > (author "...") > > > > > > (summary "...") > > > > > > (license "...") > > > > > > ...) > > On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 02:34 -0800, Derick Eddington wrote: > > > I dislike it because it's rigid. All such forms would always have to > > occur, to avoid ambiguity with identical-appearing forms which are > > supposed to be part of the library body. What if a form is desired to > > be omitted? What if a new form is desired? Not possible. > > Certainly items like 'author', 'summary', etc should be optional, not > rigid parts of the library form. In fact, 'export' and 'import' should > be the only mandatory items. So, then this could work: > > (library (xyz) > > (author "...") > > (summary "...") > > (license "...") > > (export "...") > > (import "...") > > ...) > > I.e. optional items come before 'export' and 'import'.
I think that would work. You could explore it by hacking Ikarus to do it, and then propose an SRFI. The purpose of making it part of the library form is so it's machine processable (right?), so I suppose the forms should be specified enough to be useful in that way. -- : Derick ----------------------------------------------------------------
