Alex Shinn <[email protected]> wrote: > What you are arguing below amounts to "let's just > use the Chez module system." We had a huge > amount of discussion about this already and a fair > vote, and the result is the only sensible possibility - > a lowest common denominator module system. > Chez modules cannot be implemented by every > other system, nor can Scheme48 modules, but > the R7RS define-library form can.
This is *not* what I am suggesting. I am not suggesting that we change or alter any of our previous votes. I am not suggesting that we alter or change the semantics that we voted on for the library system. I am not suggesting that we use Chez Scheme's module system. What I am suggesting is a rewriting of the language that we use to define these semantics. This change of language results in a system that is not different in terms of implementability on various Schemes. It does address the confusions that have already arisen multiple times about the various forms that we want in the language, by unifying each form to a single form and a single definition. It does eliminate the ambiguity introduced accidently by the specific tickets in question by providing a clear, simple behavior for the specific case of the top-level, while not precluding the direct implementation of the normal forms that might appear in any Scheme source. In other words, it fixes the problems introduced by new terminology and inconsistent wording from the way that we currently define the semantics of the library system. It does this by leveraging existing Scheme concepts in the standard, rather than introducing new ones. The fixes that I am suggesting do *not* change the semantics or features of our library system. The system is still implementable with a variety of techniques, including static translation to an other, existing system. All I am suggesting is that we fix the wording in a clean way, and I gave a specific way that addresses all of the issues that have come up, it does this without nullifying or overturning any of our previous votes. It does not make our system less useful, and it does not present any barriers as far as I read it to implementation uptake, because it does not prescribe any implementation strategy. Indeed, I have explicitly chosen the changes that I suggested because they preserve the least common denominator semantics that I think are important for WG1. -- Aaron W. Hsu | [email protected] | http://www.sacrideo.us Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
