On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:19:19 -0400, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Aaron W. Hsu scripsit:
>
>> This makes life difficult for the syntactic module crowd.
>
> I haven't read your proposal yet, but please explain what syntactic
> modules
> and non-syntactic modules are.
My use of the term syntactic modules is meant to distinguish the ability
to generate modules from macros from module systems that in essence exist
at a level different than othere Scheme code, such that Scheme code can
not naturally manipulate or work with module forms directly. R6RS
libraries are an example of libraries that cannot be treated in this
manner. I also believe that modules should be valid anywhere a definition
is valid. This is a direct result of the syntactic thinking. That is, I
see modules as just another Scheme form, not as a separate language.
>> Whatever happens, I don't think Cond-expand should go into the standard,
>
> I think it should be provided as a useful shim device. Ideally it
> shouldn't
> exist, but one often needs just a bit of glue.
Most of the Scheme implementations I am seeing use separate files rather
than cond-expand to do this sort of glueing. I'm inclined to think that
this is the way to go, and that neither of these is suitable to put in the
Core Scheme. I just don't see enough of cond-expand in widespread use.
>> and certainly no module system should be tied to it.
>
> The only connection between the two is that if a module exists,
> cond-expand
> knows about it along with whatever other implementation-specific things
> it
> knows about.
I just don't think it should be mentioned at all. I don't think it should
be necessary to have cond-expand in order to have a module system. If the
module system defines cond-expand semantics, then we need to put that in
the standard. Maybe we can define cond-expand somewhere else and say that
modules defined should have a cond-expand element registered, but that's
in the specification of cond-expand, not modules.
Aaron W. Hsu
--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
