[R6RS] modules?

[Michael Sperber]

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

Matthew> At Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:34:10 -0400, Marc Feeley wrote:
>> My main issue with Matthew's proposal is that I don't understand how
>> the pieces of code (the modules) are put together to form a program.

Back at the Scheme workshop, Richard, you and I discussed two issues
related to this:

- putting several MODULE forms into a single file
- establishing some kind of global hierarchical namespace for these
  guys

While having one MODULE form per file is very convenient technically,
I agree with Richard that it often leads to lots of unnecessary
filesystem clutter.

On the other hand, allowing several MODULE forms / "module"
definitions per file enables some other conveniences we often make use
of in the package system of Scheme 48, which is similar to MzScheme's
in many ways---in particular, separating interfaces from
implementations, defining several "modules" off a single body of code,
and a simple form of static parametricity.  In particular, the first
two of those are very useful, and things I often find myself wishing
for when I write larger applications with MzScheme.

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