2009/8/24 John Cowan <[email protected]>: > Thomas Lord scripsit: > >> I hope that small Scheme does *not* include a module system but large >> scheme does. > > Your hope has failed:
Not his alone! > http://www.scheme-reports.org/2009/working-group-1-charter.html says: > > # The language developed by working group 1 must include support for > # macros and modules/libraries in a way that is appropriate for the > # language's small size. Ah. Well the thing is that hygiene-breaking macro modularity looks (to me at least) like it requires some way of staging the macro evaluations - which almost certainly means something that looks a lot like a module system. Although it could just be a separate compilation strategy, maybe? Interesting problem actually, I'm doing some work in another venue that seems marginally related just now... > I suppose you *could* read that as "the appropriate size is none at all", > but that would be perverse. Nothing wrong with that. At all :) When I look at how the Haskell community has just zipped past Scheme, I really have to wonder what we've been doing wrong. david rush -- GPG Public key at http://cyber-rush.org/drr/gpg-public-key.txt _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
