On Thu 19 May 2011 19:39, John Cowan <[email protected]> writes:
> Andy Wingo scripsit: > >> I find it a bit jarring to see "delay" so far away from "force". Now >> that we have modules, why not reorganize things a little bit? It's >> probably OK to have syntax not all in one section. >> >> I also think that the notation "FOO module procedure" is a bit too >> understated, and would benefit from modules being documented in their >> own sections. > > The WG consensus was to keep the R5RS structure as much as possible, > since many people have internalized it. When using an R7RS > implementation casually, the expectation is that you don't much have to > care what module an identifier is in: only when writing a module do you > need to be careful. Hmmmmm. Well, I won't argue it further, but would like to note that I disagree with both of these points: (1) clarity helps our current users, and (hopefully) the number of scheme's future users are more numerous than its past users; and (2) at least beyond wg1 you are definitely going to be concerned about where your binding for `open-database' is coming from. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
