[R6RS] modules?

[Michael Sperber]

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

Matthew> Quoting Mike:
>> I also strongly vote for calling the basic construction something
>> other than "module," "package," or "unit," to avoid the traditional
>> confusion.

I may have expressed this poorly.  I vote for calling it something
*not* in the above set---generally, something that's not in use by an
existing Scheme implementation, to avoid the confusion I have seen
on many occasions.

Like "omnibus", "anthology", "magazine", "menagerie" (for a collection
of related things), or "context", "habitat", "scenery" (for an
environment for a piece of code).  Native speakers could probably do
better.

I realize this is kind of radical, but otherwise, we're just going to
get into the same endless wars again: "How could the R6RS people f*ck
up the module system?  It doesn't even support X."  Then at least we
could reply: "R6RS doesn't specify a module system---it only specifies
a frob system.  A module system is still useful, and it's
implementable via the frob system / is addressed by library X or SRFI
Y / may be addressed by RZRS."

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