[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] organizational comment regarding modules
On Thu 19 May 2011 19:39, John Cowan <cowan@x> writes:
> Andy Wingo scripsit:
>> I find it a bit jarring to see "delay" so far away from "force". Now
>> that we have modules, why not reorganize things a little bit? It's
>> probably OK to have syntax not all in one section.
>> I also think that the notation "FOO module procedure" is a bit too
>> understated, and would benefit from modules being documented in their
>> own sections.
> The WG consensus was to keep the R5RS structure as much as possible,
> since many people have internalized it. When using an R7RS
> implementation casually, the expectation is that you don't much have to
> care what module an identifier is in: only when writing a module do you
> need to be careful.
Hmmmmm. Well, I won't argue it further, but would like to note that I
disagree with both of these points:
(1) clarity helps our current users, and (hopefully) the number of
scheme's future users are more numerous than its past users; and
(2) at least beyond wg1 you are definitely going to be concerned about
where your binding for `open-database' is coming from.
Scheme-reports mailing list