Wed Apr 14 13:12:20 EDT 2004
>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> writes:
Matthew> I've struggled all day to reply to Kent's and Mike's message, and the
Matthew> best I can do seems too technical for this stage of the
Matthew> discussion. [...]
For the record, I agree with everything you say in the message. I
just have a few questions:
Matthew> I'd prefer to concentrate on a top-level module system at first, and
Matthew> leave internal modules to a second round.
Can you present an argument as to why to internal modules shouldn't
have library status, as they presently seem to have in PLT Scheme?
I worry that even the top-level module system is already pretty hard
to implement, looking at the time it took many implementations to even
just catch up with SYNTAX-RULES. Adding internal modules as a
required part would make this harder still.
Matthew> I think that MS modules are more important for portable and
Matthew> modularized code, whereas SC modules are more useful for
Matthew> building macros.
Matthew> But a consistent syntax might be a good idea, anyway.
You say this, but you don't really put up an argument for it except
for saying that Schemers like internal DEFINE, so they'll like
consistent syntax here, too. You also say that there are puzzling
differences between top-level and internal define, and I'd say we
should get rid of these. Do you have a feel as to how puzzling the
differences between the internal and the top-level module system will
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
More information about the R6RS