[R6RS] Library syntax versioning

[William D Clinger]

Mike wrote:
> I don't think "heavyweight" is a problem, as this is primarily a
> distribution mechanism.  In fact, one deficiency of SRFI 83 is that
> this fact hasn't been obvious to many people on the mailing list, even
> though it's been explained multiple times.

The problem is that the explanation isn't convincing.  If the
library mechanisms proposed in SRFI 83 turns out to be the
closest thing to a module system in R6RS, then it will be the
only module mechanism available for portable Scheme code, and
everyone who cares about portability will use it as such.

> I'd like to suggest an alternative, namely making explicit the notion
> of a distribution format and going outside the traditional Scheme
> syntax to make it work.

That would be fine with me, but it would not replace the need
for something that resembles a module mechanism in R6RS.  At
this late date, I think we're stuck with the library mechanism.
Fixing its problems is more important than adding a second
distribution mechanism.

Will