On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 12:56 -0700, Pavel Dudrenov wrote: > I'm all for having standard module system in small scheme. I'm also > all for keeping that module system with small and simple public > interface.
A SRFI compatible with small scheme can provide that. Back in the day, when it was uphill to school in both directions, people would sometimes write "modules" like: (define export1 '()) (define export2 '()) ... (letrec* ( ...module definition ...) (set! export1 ...) (set! export2 ...) ...) If you syntactically abstract that a bit you get a perfectly nice standard for a module system for small scheme. (John C.: This half-answers (but enough?) your request to flesh out my claim that a module system can be just syntax.) -t _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
