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.
Andre van Tonder <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Since modules were supposed to be one of the two major language > issues for R6RS, does this perhaps suggest that it is too soon for > R6RS, that the mandate has changed, or that it was never clear to > begin with? ;-) That it wasn't clear to begin with. People associate radically different things with the word "module" or "module system": - configuration management - interchangeable parts - namespace management - hygiene - encapsulation - separate compilation - independent compilation - optimization - ... Some of these goals conflict, at least among the module systems and designs we've looked at, which is why we (eventually) narrowed down the list of requirements. I'll be happy to elaborate, but it's a long tortuous story ... :-) > Anyway, it seems that R6RS libraries solve the same problems as the PLT > module system (which is fine). Would that be a accurate statement? No. The PLT module system has obvious differences to this one. This one most prominently has static dependencies and static (if implicit) interfaces, which PLT's MODULE does not. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla