[r6rs-discuss] Counter-proposal (Re: Proposed features for small Scheme, part 9: modules)

[John Cowan]

Arthur A. Gleckler scripsit:

> I'm curious: What primitives do different Scheme implementations use
> to implement their module systems, both R6RS-compliant and otherwise?

I don't know the specifics.  I suspect the short answer is "Low-level macro
systems".  Clearly in some Schemes, modules are a separate language from
Scheme itself, whereas in others they are part of it.

> If we could agree on a common set of such primitives in WG1, different
> implementations could implement both R6RS-style modules and completely
> different module systems, but have them interoperate.  I'm
> particularly interested in the lowest layer of procedural abstraction
> that can be used to implement practical module systems.
> 
> I don't mean to take a stand on whether R6RS-style modules should be
> in WG1.  I'm just interested in whether there's also a useful lower
> layer on which we could agree.

I share this ambition, but fear that it will lead to a dreadful rathole.

-- 
The Unicode Standard does not encode            John Cowan
idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
use characters, nor does it encode logos
or graphics.                                    cowan at ccil.org