This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 83 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 83 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Matthew Flatt wrote: > Others can offer additional arguments. I know, for example, that some > would like to include multiple library definitions in a single file, > and others object more generally to the notion of "file" in a > specification of syntax. This is very true, but since scheme (like all lisps) is a heavily nested language, splitting a program arbitrarily into files is likely to cut across nesting boundaries, leaving files that can't be understood as part of program structure on their own. So I think that we probably *should* say that the system is not obliged to correctly interpret a single nested structure spread across multiple files; Otherwise, I think file boundaries probably ought to be syntactically completely irrelevant. I have another interpretation of file boundaries in mind that would be appropriate for *some* lispy language with lexical scope; it would be ultra-consistent with scheme's design, but it's radical, inconsistent with all extant scheme module systems, requires major implementation work, makes file loading of uncompiled scheme files slower and more complicated, and hasn't years of testing to see whether it works well in practice. Bear