Arthur A. Gleckler scripsit: > I'm curious: What primitives do different Scheme implementations use > to implement their module systems, both R6RS-compliant and otherwise?
I don't know the specifics. I suspect the short answer is "Low-level macro systems". Clearly in some Schemes, modules are a separate language from Scheme itself, whereas in others they are part of it. > If we could agree on a common set of such primitives in WG1, different > implementations could implement both R6RS-style modules and completely > different module systems, but have them interoperate. I'm > particularly interested in the lowest layer of procedural abstraction > that can be used to implement practical module systems. > > I don't mean to take a stand on whether R6RS-style modules should be > in WG1. I'm just interested in whether there's also a useful lower > layer on which we could agree. I share this ambition, but fear that it will lead to a dreadful rathole. -- The Unicode Standard does not encode John Cowan idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private http://www.ccil.org/~cowan use characters, nor does it encode logos or graphics. [email protected] _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
