On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 10:19 -0400, Aaron W. Hsu wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:11:12 -0400, Grant Rettke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Your assertion is that the module system will be constructed using the
> > language?
>
> My assertion is that mapping a module language to a specific system
> behavior such as how the modules are laid out in the file system is a bad
> idea.
I don't care how they are laid out in the file system. But I want
people to be able to use any of the "standard" libraries supplied
with a conforming system by typing the same (load..) or (use ...)
or (import ...) or whatever form when programming. They don't
have to (and shouldn't) mention a path-and-filename for standard
libraries; they should rely on the implementation knowing where
it keeps those libraries.
To reiterate, it's not a question of how files are laid out in the
file system; it's a question of exactly how the language allows
programmers to refer to and use standard modules.
Bear
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
