Hey Everyone - I feel like a student cramming for an exam :-). I have a few questions I'd love to have answers to before I cast my R6RS vote. I've tried to find these answers in the rationale document and by searching the mail archives, but I can't seem to find what I'm looking for.
My intention here is not to start a flame war - I'm just looking for reasoning behind decisions. 1. Why a standard library and not just dependence on SRFI's? Seems to me like the SRFI process works well (I use them all the time with SISC) and would allow us to shrink the spec significantly. Though I'm sure there's there a good reason why the contents of the standard library are what they are. What's that reason? A pointer to an existing discussion in the mail archive would be perfect. 2. The module system used by SISC<http://sisc-scheme.org/manual/html/ch10.html>(the one developed for Chez Scheme) seems to provide less functionality than the one provided for the in current R6RS draft. However, it seems more composable (not sure if that's the right term) than the draft proposal. For example, anonymous modules can be created in any lexical scope. The result is that you can add functionality to the module system by creating macros. This approach of creating a lightweight and flexible feature, with the ability to enhance it by the user, seems more in keeping with the spirit of Scheme. Is there a reason a more heavyweight / less flexible module system was chosen? Again, a pointer to a conversation would be great. Also, please correct me if my understanding of the module system is not correct. Thanks for helping to make me an educated consumer. -Ben -- Ben Simon My blog: http://benjisimon.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
