Am 07.07.2011 19:52, schrieb John Cowan: > Denis Washington scripsit: > >> What about "define-library"? It might be slightly confusing as it >> sounds a bit procedural for a purely syntactic construct, but it >> does not seem to clash with any existing implementation (as far as a >> quick Google search reveals, at least) and preserves the "library" >> term, which is common, well-known, clear and in line with previous >> Scheme specs (R6RS and, in a way, R5RS' usage of the term "library >> procedure"). > > That's an excellent idea. Ticket #228 filed.
Glad you like it. >> Having said that, I don't find "extensibility" to be a particularly >> good argument for the design of a standard module system. > > I think it's more about extensibility to the WG2 language and to further > versions of Scheme than extensibility to individual implementation > features (though implementation features ought to be the source for > next-version features). I know. My point was that if there is room for extensibility, it will eventually be used by implementors. > >> [...] what is actually mainly thought of as a portability construct [...] > > What begins as a portability construct in the current generation of > Schemes becomes the native format in future generations, if history is > anything to go by -- and not just Scheme history, either; Unicode started > out as a mere interchange encoding between systems that were expected to > preserve their native encodings, and has now become the native encoding > of most systems. Fair enough. >> [...] it encourages programmers to narrow the portability of their >> code to a subset of the Scheme landscape for mere convenience. > > As I've pointed out before, application programmers don't really need to > make their code portable between Schemes any more, because each Scheme > (with a very few exceptions) is itself highly portable. It's library > programmers that really need and benefit from standardization. With the exception of a module system which is supported by a major number of (non-R6RS) Scheme systems, yes. (That and a portable FFI to call C code, but this is a whole other issue.) Regards, Denis Washington _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
