[R6RS] draft module SRFI
Thu Aug 4 13:33:40 EDT 2005
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