[R6RS] modules?

[Michael Sperber]

>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> writes:

Matthew> Otherwise, perhaps I need to work harder o provoke comments
Matthew> on the strawman syntax proposal.

A while ago, I commented on "interfaces as nameable entitities" and
"more than one module per file."  Do you have any take on that?

Generally, the issue of parametricity still worries me.  Being able to
link a program against several different libraries with the same
interface is pretty important to me.  Arguably, it shouldn't be done
in the top-level module system you propose.  On the other hand, I'm
pretty unhappy with the place this takes in MzScheme, where you can
build a "unit" within a module, and instantiate and exports all of its
exports to get a module.  This has two disadvantages:

- Being able to link against another library with the same interface
  requires changing the library.

- Changing the library may not be possible if it's from some
  third-party vendor.

Again---I'm not sure this should be addressed in the top-level module
system we're discussing now, or even any module system we specify in
R6RS.  On the other hand, I'd like to avoid getting into a corner
where it's difficult to add something later on that avoids the
aforementioned problems.

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