[R6RS] Re: strawman module syntax

[Matthew Flatt]

At Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:59:40 +0200, Michael Sperber wrote:
> Another issue with your original proposal.  You repeatedly mentioned
> how important it is to be able to macro-expand into REQUIRE and
> PROVIDE forms.  But didn't you take away that ability by surrounding
> the code with BEGIN/INCLUDE/whatever?  (That is how Scheme 48 works,
> so we may have read different semantics into the syntax.)

I'm not sure I understand.

MzScheme allows macros to expand into `require' and `provide' forms,
but the strawman proposal did not allow that.

I made the strawman weaker on purpose. But if we eventually agree to
allow `require' in local `module's and/or internal definition contexts,
then we might as well allow macros to expand to `require's.

Matthew