"Ben Simon" <benjisimon at gmail.com> writes:
> 1. Why a standard library and not just dependence on SRFI's? Seems to me
> like the SRFI process works well (I use them all the time with SISC) and
> would allow us to shrink the spec significantly. Though I'm sure there's
> there a good reason why the contents of the standard library are what they
> are. What's that reason? A pointer to an existing discussion in the mail
> archive would be perfect.
(This is a quote from my ILC paper.)
While the SRFIs are a valuable vehicle for discussing proposals, and
many are widely adopted by implementations, they do not have a
coherent organizing principle; for some subjects, several competing
SRFIs exist. Thus, the SRFIs in some cases serve as an incubator for
future standards but are no substitute for a coherent
language design and set of standard libraries.
> 2. The module system used by
> SISC<http://sisc-scheme.org/manual/html/ch10.html>(the one developed
> for Chez Scheme) seems to provide less functionality than
> the one provided for the in current R6RS draft. However, it seems more
> composable (not sure if that's the right term) than the draft proposal. For
> example, anonymous modules can be created in any lexical scope. The result
> is that you can add functionality to the module system by creating macros.
> This approach of creating a lightweight and flexible feature, with the
> ability to enhance it by the user, seems more in keeping with the spirit of
> Scheme. Is there a reason a more heavyweight / less flexible module system
> was chosen? Again, a pointer to a conversation would be great. Also, please
> correct me if my understanding of the module system is not correct.
There are probably hundreds of posts on this in the archives of the
mailing list of the R6RS editors. The response to formal comment #84
provides a brief summary:
http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-84.txt
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Thu Aug 02 2007 - 02:57:01 UTC