Maybe module system is to strong of a word then. My ideal solution is: base language + a well defined set of optional libraries that you can test for/include in a well define way.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Thomas Lord<[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 13:33 -0700, Pavel Dudrenov wrote: >> 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. > > You can't grab power over future programmers > that way. Don't even bother trying. And you > shouldn't, anyway - it's rude. > > If small scheme has some anemic module system, > don't act too surprised when people start writing > their own replacements anyway. > > Just give people the essence which, in this matter, > is just enough so that module system_s_ can be defined > in SRFIs. > > We're already committed to some form of syntactic > abstraction and lambda: there is nothing more to > add to the *core* vis a vis modules. > > -t > > > _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
