[r6rs-discuss] comment and vote (if allowed) (Elf)

From: Lynn Winebarger <owinebar>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:06:37 -0400

On 8/24/07, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> > On 8/24/07, Elf <elf at ephemeral.net> wrote:
> >
> >> find some module
> >> or library system similar to all existing ones, and give it
> >> sufficient power
> >> to allow implementations to export their differences as modules
> >> includable by
> >> others.
>
> On Aug 24, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Elf wrote:
>
> > i am not saying that this was not the goal, i am saying that this
> > goal was
> > not met.
>
>
> Since you appear to believe that it is possible to design such a module
> system after the editors appear to have spent a serious amount of time
> investigating this question, I think the burden on proof is on you.
>
> To do so, I would expect that you demonstrate your belief with two
> actions:
>
> -- design a module system all the way thru (may require a prototype)
>
> -- validate with three distinct and unrelated implementations that
> your criteria can be met
>
> I am looking forward to your completed counter-argument. Until then
> I (and probably others) must consider your criticism non-constructive.

    I agree with your sentiment, but I have a question about the
parameters of acceptability. I don't think there is a "most general
module system", but I do think we could devise a core language
whose semantics would allow the use of multiple module systems
simultaneously.

     Would that be an acceptable approach? It might rely on having
an eval construct that actually has side effects on environments
(extending the set of bindings would be sufficient, I think, as would
immutable bindings as long as we can create mutable cells).

Lynn
Received on Fri Aug 24 2007 - 13:06:37 UTC