On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Aaron W. Hsu <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 understand that on some systems you can't even assume a file system exists. However I don't think this should prevent an average scheme user trying to write portable code from being able to assume a fairly standard module layout for systems with a standard file system. I think the prospect of an optional or recommended system for scheme modules would take us a large portion of the way there. A very small part of a standard module system should actually require declaration of the implementation. Those should certainly be recommendations at the most. The lack of a common module system is the biggest constraint on portable development as I've experienced. Nicholas "Indy" Ray _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
