[R6RS] draft module SRFI

Michael Sperber sperber
Thu Aug 4 13:33:40 EDT 2005

Excellent work!

Comments (none of them of substance):

- "Need better support": not a complete sentence.  It's also too
  strong, unless the missing noun is "I" or somebody not me.

  I'm not sure this issue does any good here.  If it's included, other
  alternatives besides conflating module language and body language
  should be listed.  I propose to replace the first bullet by this:

  o The imports and exports are conceptually but not syntactically
    separate from the body.  This permits implementations to allow
    macro-expanding into import and export forms.  (Libraries that
    make use of this are portable, of course.)  This implies that full
    macro expansion of the entire code is necessary to determine the
    exports and imports of a module.

    Alternatively, the module language could be syntactically
    distinguished from the body language (by a pair of parentheses or
    a keyword), and the module language could live in a separate
    import phase.  This would allow macro expansion at the module
    level, and not require full macro expansion of the body to find
    out the exports and imports.

- last issue bullet: "[...] determining the phase of an import would
  require macro-expanding the module body." I don't understand this:
  the phasing can influence the macro expansion, right?  Wouldn't this
  introduce a circularity into the semantics?

- "all imported bindings are available for processing of
              ^ should be ">"

- "right-hand size" -> "right-hand side"

- nit: I got slightly tripped up by the spelling of "signaled," which
  is correct but different from R5RS's "signalled"

Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla

More information about the R6RS mailing list