[R6RS] modules?

[Michael Sperber]

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

Matthew> The only way that I know to get full SC (including `import-only')
Matthew> involves adding support in the core syntax engine.

Matthew> I'm fairly certain that I could improve `package' to make it more like
Matthew> SC minus `import-only', but it's painful, and it probably has
Matthew> algorithmic problems (much like the original hygienic systems).
Matthew> Extending the core expander looks easy by comparison.

Makes sense.

Matthew> But a consistent syntax might be a good idea, anyway.
>> 
>> You say this, but you don't really put up an argument for it except
>> for saying that Schemers like internal DEFINE, so they'll like
>> consistent syntax here, too.

Based on this, I'm even more convinced that we should, for the time
being, view the Chez-style and the MzScheme-style MODULE thingies as
separate entities with different purposes and therefore independent
design.  (And focus on the MzScheme-style thing for now.)  If they
still end up similar, we can consider a merge, but I feel that there's
at least a risk that premature merging will lose some understanding of
the essence of each.

(This is very similar to the situation with "exception systems" where
the premature assumption that there should "only be one" led to
significant misunderstanding and ultimately pointless debate on
rrrs-authors.)

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