On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Lord<[email protected]> wrote: > 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. True, but I think that it would be more beneficial for implementations to provide a module system. But not required like you said. One of the main benefits, apart from leaving implementations to represent modules as they feel free internally, is that people would have a standard minimalistic module system already provided, so, hopefully, no one will have the urge to write their own module system as to better split code for projects they are working on. > > > (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
