[R6RS] Re: strawman module syntax

Richard Kelsey kelsey
Sun Jul 11 10:12:07 EDT 2004

   From: Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu>
   Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 07:38:26 -0700

   For me, the circle of this conversation has now spiraled into a black
   hole (how can a discussion about sharing code not be about libraries?).
   And by merely repeating my opinions, instead of offering concrete
   proposals, I'm not contributing anything to keep us out of the hole.

Nonsense.  It is clear that there is significant misunderstanding
between even the active participants in the current discussion,
much less the lurking members of the committee.  This complicated
and, to us anyway, serious stuff.

Concrete proposals are easy.  The hard part is understanding
someone else's objections well enough to present and modify
a proposal in such a way that it is is clear that it meets their
needs on their terms.

This is especially true in the present case.  There are two
very different approaches to adding modules to Scheme: by adding
new special forms or by adding a separate module language that
is disjoint from Scheme.  Module systems of both kinds have
been implemented and used by us but few of us have experience
with both.  It is going to take a lot of discussion and a lot
of repetition of points to reach an agreement on what we ought
to do.

More information about the R6RS mailing list