Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] Fixing libraries (was Re: Questions about cond-expand)

[Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@x>]

Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Per Bothner <per@x> wrote:

> > I assume you mean that Chez modules are be so
> > *fundamentally* different from other module systems
> > that it would be need a huge and unreasonable re-write
> > that it would not be reasonable for R7RS.
>
> More or less.  What I actually mean is that
> it should be trivial to define a static translation
> between R7RS library declarations and any
> existing module system.

As per my other email, I am not suggesting that we change any 
of our previous votes for the module system. I agree with you here 
about the least common denominator. What I am suggesting is not 
what you seem to think that I am. I am merely suggesting a way to 
fix the semantics that makes everything cleaner.

-- 

Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@x | http://www.sacrideo.us
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports