Re: rfc (define-module ... #:use-modules ...)

[Keith Wright]

> From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden>
> 
> that is, `#:use-modules X Y Z' would be exactly equivalent
> to `#:use-module X #:use-module Y #:use-module Z'.
> 
> quantitatively, for N upstream (used) modules, this would result
> in N-1 fewer keywords required in the `define-module' form.
> 
> what do people think of this syntatic sugar?

Syntactic sugar is really boring.

I have never understood why there are #: keywords in
the first place.  Why don't quoted symbols and
keywords defined by macros and syntactic abstraction
totally suffice?

> ... i should wait so as to be able to harmonize w/
> [guile 8] design.  perhaps we can start to build
> towards each other in this way.

It would be heartening to read that the maintainer
of the fork wants to build toward the other branch
were it not for the cynical suspicion that that
"harmonize" is like "bi-pertisan"; it means everyone
should do it my way, even if they fundamentally
disagree with me.

If you want to harmonize, maybe both branches could
think about implementing R6RS library forms.

   -- Keith