[R6RS] libraries

[Anton van Straaten]

Michael Sperber wrote:
 > dyb at cs.indiana.edu writes:
 >
 >
 >>Assuming we decide on immutability, then, is that for (a) all bindings,
 >>(b) all exported bindings (indirect as well as direct) only, or (c) all
 >>directly exported bindings only?  Are (i) both exporting and importing
 >>modules enjoined from mutating an export or (ii) just the importing
 >>modules? (I assume we're talking about variable bindings only, in
 >>any case.)
 >
 >
 > I was personally thinking (implicitly, I now realize) that
 > "immutability" referred to the fact that the SET! on a top-level
 > variable defined in a module has to be in the body of that same
 > module.

That was my thinking too.

Kent Dybvig wrote:
 > I don't like conflating namespace management and mutability control;
 > each is useful independently of the other.  That is, I would have
 > the library system control visibility of identifiers and introduce a
 > define-immutable form or allow people to define their own as a macro.

The ability to define a completely immutable variable - one that can't 
even be SET! within its defining module - is (or should be) a separate 
issue.  However, the ability to restrict mutation of a variable by 
modules other than the defining module seems to fall within the domain 
of the module system.

I don't have any objection in principle to adding support for a 
qualifier in the export form which allows a suitably qualified exported 
variable to be mutated by an importing module.  However, I believe the 
default behavior of variables exported from a module should be as 
described by Mike above.

Anton

P.S. I suppose I should s/module/library/, I haven't gotten used to that 
yet.