[r6rs-discuss] [ANN] scheme-reports.org

[David Rush]

2009/8/24 John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>:
> Thomas Lord scripsit:
>
>> I hope that small Scheme does *not* include a module system but large
>> scheme does.
>
> Your hope has failed:

Not his alone!

> http://www.scheme-reports.org/2009/working-group-1-charter.html says:
>
> # The language developed by working group 1 must include support for
> # macros and modules/libraries in a way that is appropriate for the
> # language's small size.

Ah. Well the thing is that hygiene-breaking macro modularity looks (to
me at least) like it requires some way of staging the macro
evaluations - which almost certainly means something that looks a lot
like a module system. Although it could just be a separate compilation
strategy, maybe? Interesting problem actually, I'm doing some work in
another venue that seems marginally related just now...

> I suppose you *could* read that as "the appropriate size is none at all",
> but that would be perverse.

Nothing wrong with that. At all :)

When I look at how the Haskell community has just zipped past Scheme,
I really have to wonder what we've been doing wrong.

david rush
-- 
GPG Public key at http://cyber-rush.org/drr/gpg-public-key.txt