Can we at least agree that a developer, having read the Thing One report, should be able to *use* the module system without making guesses as to how a particular implementation organizes it? R6RS failed to address finding standard modules in an installed system.
A short list repeated from an earlier post, because damnit, this is important! A module system that includes detailed descriptions of how to define portable modules in scheme, how to load user-defined portable modules (typically kept in the same directory as the rest of the project). how to load implementation-defined portable modules (scheme modules provided by the implementor, presumably in a place known to the installation/configuration/registry database). how to manage the namespace. Mention that implementations are strongly encouraged to provide and document (unspecified) ways to define "non- portable" modules that do things not accessible in pure scheme (such as bitgroveling, file and character I/O, access the binary format in which scheme's data is held at runtime, operating sytem calls, etc). how to load "implementation defined non-portable" modules. How to load "user-defined non-portable" modules (modules provided by the user which use the implementation-defined means of creating non-portable modules to do things.) _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
