From: Brian Harvey <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] Proposed features for small Scheme, part 9: modules Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:10:50 -0700
> > I personally need it to ensure that the > > program I installed on a client machine includes everything > > it needs). > > I would say that if you know how to say "client machine" you are the > very paradigm of a WG2 customer! I disagree. The very reason I bet my living on Scheme is that I believe small core language and industrial strength can get along. Of course I don't expect WG1 Scheme provide everthing I need to write commercial apps. I don't even expect WG2 Scheme does. I do expect WG1 Scheme provide a basis, on top of which various SRFIs can be provided. So, I'm flexible about moving some features out of the language, but I'd like to make sure that the language won't make it impossible (or very difficult) to provide such features on top of it. Module system can be in a language with a simple form as in John's proposal, or can be outside of the core language as a separately defined meta language (maybe in SRFI). I'm open to either way. I've been living mostly happily with R5RS + very simple module system + cond-expand + other SRFIs, and I don't think it's unreasonable to put a simple one into a language. But if people insist Small Scheme shouldn't have phase distinction, it might be actually a good idea to kick the meta information outside of the core language. Then the behavior of module system may be explained as a simple-minded preprocessor that takes bunch of Scheme code fragments and generate a monlithic source that can be executed by simple Scheme. (Implementation can manage Scheme sources more cleverly, of course.) --shiro _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
