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

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() Keith Wright <address@hidden>
() Sun, 7 Oct 2007 00:05:13 -0400

   Consensus - same sense or feeling (<-Latin sentire)
   Concensus - if that were a word,
               it might mean same head-count

thanks; i stand corrected.

   Anyway carry on.  Or muddle on.  My opinion means
   little with no code to back it up, and I have none.

i appreciate when anyone shares their opinion because
it gives me (some) insight into other points of view.
code is opinions petrified and sometimes worth less.

   Are you worried about the systactic difference
   between [...] ?

yes, precisely.

   The later (with parentheses on both sides)
   seems more lispy to me, but it seems like a
   pretty trivial change of syntax.  It would
   be more interesting to learn about the deep
   magick hidden in the blah blah.

IIUC, first blah in r6rs is `(export EXPORT-SPEC...)'.
second blah is `(import IMPORT-SPEC...)'.

   I would leave modules alone for backward
   compatibility, and try to add something
   with the (library ...) syntax but with an
   underlying semantics as much as possible
   like the current module system.

   Then I would write a paper or manifesto
   on the exact reasons why libraries and
   modules are too different to be inter-
   changeable.

   At least, that is how I would reconcile the
   two approaches if I were even to begin
   reconciliation.  In the real world, I
   will type my pipe dream to the mailling
   list and then go to bed and not care about
   it in the morning.

sounds reasonable.  below is a work-in-progress sketch
that dreamers (-: or insomniacs who want to dream) might
find interesting.  the manifesto is still bubbling, but
only time will tell...

thi

___________________________________________________________

.ttn.hack.tar.gz
Description: where to put the parens?!