[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] organizational comment regarding modules
- To: Andy Wingo <wingo@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] organizational comment regarding modules
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 13:39:27 -0400
- Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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.
For the most part the WG1 modules reflect the optionality historically
present in pre-R6RS versions of Scheme: for example, the inexact module
provides procedures which are not required if you don't have inexact
numbers, and the complex module ditto for general complex numbers.
Conceptually, however, they are integrated with the rest of the numeric
procedures, and it's not that helpful to explain them in a wholly
disjoint part of the report. Likewise, the procedures in the unicode
module are those which depend on casing and normalization tables.
(I've filed tickets to split it into two modules named casing and
De plichten van een docent zijn divers, John Cowan
die van het gehoor ook. cowan@x
--Edsger Dijkstra http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Scheme-reports mailing list