[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library"
- To: scheme-reports@x
- Subject: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library"
- From: Denis Washington <denisw@x>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:40:34 +0200
I have followed the WG1 discussions for quite a while and like what I
see very much; thanks for doing this! However, there is one thing that
kind of bugs me and which, in the time frame I have followed the list so
far, hasn't been addressed:
Why choose "module" as a name instead of "library"? I understand that
the former might be a saner name semantically, but the fact that this
(somewhat needlessly, IMO) breaks compatibility with the very similar
"library" form of R6RS makes me kind of uneasy. To me, this feels more
like bikeshedding than a sensible change, and seems to complicate the
writing of code that runs on both R6RS and future R7RS implementations.
Having said that, I know this must have probably been discussed in great
lengths here *before* I started following the discussion, so all I'd
like to ask is: if not bikeshedding, what was the actual rationale for
On a related note, I have noticed that the modules/libraries are also
named differently, with "scheme" as a prefix instead of "rnrs", which
gives me the same uneasiness as the above. Why is that? It would be nice
if there would at least be a section which describes legacy "rnrs"
modules which simply report the corresponding "scheme" counterparts (in
Thanks in advance for your explanations.
Scheme-reports mailing list