Thomas Lord scripsit: > Why not just stick to the much simpler REQUIRE and use naming > conventions to distinguish exported from internal definitions in > a library?
Naming conventions collide: some day there may be more than one Tom Lord writing Scheme code. Name prefixing puts the library *user* in control of the conventions rather than the library author. (The other import specifications, "only", "except", and "rename", support trivial special cases: I wouldn't die to see them go.) > Or just write libraries in a style (a traditional style, no less) > with only exported bindings defined at the top level? I consider that an unnatural constraint on my code style. I prefer to write all named procedures at top level unless they actually reference identifiers that are bound in some other procedure. > There's nothing "of the essence" about the chicken module system. > I presume it works very nicely in the context of Chicken but it seems > kind of redundant and ad hoc and it adds implementation complexity - > all of which I think disrecommends it for small Scheme. There's nothing "of the essence" about map and for-each either, but we don't want to give them up. -- There is no real going back. Though I John Cowan may come to the Shire, it will not seem [email protected] the same; for I shall not be the same. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan I am wounded with knife, sting, and tooth, and a long burden. Where shall I find rest? --Frodo _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
