Home > Archive > Scheme > September 2004 > Modules in R6RS (was Re: Scheme for programmers book)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Modules in R6RS (was Re: Scheme for programmers book)
|
|
| David Rush 2004-09-27, 9:07 am |
| Jens Axel Søgaard <usenet@soegaard.net> writes:
> Note: I expect modules will appear in the next Scheme standard.
Are you taking odds? And what millenium will see the release of such a
standard?
There were smileys up there somewhere for the ironically-challenged...
david rush
--
In a profession plagued by, "when all you have is a hammer, everything
looks like a nail," we get really excited when someone is able to come
along and prove that everything really *is* a nail if lambda is the
hammer. -- Bruce R Lewis (on comp.lang.scheme)
| |
| Nic Ferrier 2004-09-27, 4:02 pm |
| David Rush <kumo@gofree.indigo.ie> writes:
> Jens Axel Søgaard <usenet@soegaard.net> writes:
>
> Are you taking odds? And what millenium will see the release of such a
> standard?
>
> There were smileys up there somewhere for the ironically-challenged...
Talking about modules... I've been thinking recently how simple it
would be to add a perl like module system (and the object orientation
that comes with it) to scheme.
Does anybody else here think the perl module system would be a good
fit for scheme?
I'll happily explain the idea if anyone is interested.
Nic
| |
|
| Nic Ferrier wrote:
> David Rush <kumo@gofree.indigo.ie> writes:
>
>
>
>
> Talking about modules... I've been thinking recently how simple it
> would be to add a perl like module system (and the object orientation
> that comes with it) to scheme.
>
>
> Does anybody else here think the perl module system would be a good
> fit for scheme?
>
> I'll happily explain the idea if anyone is interested.
>
Yes, please do. But don't be disappointed if people will be
unsatisfied, since 99% solutions are not accepted in here and
all you get is 20 URLs to a paper by Matthew Flat... ;-)
cheers,
felix
| |
| David Rush 2004-09-28, 9:04 am |
| felix <felix@call-with-current-continuation.org> writes:
> Nic Ferrier wrote:
>
> Yes, please do. But don't be disappointed if people will be
> unsatisfied, since 99% solutions are not accepted in here and
> all you get is 20 URLs to a paper by Matthew Flat... ;-)
Yes indeed. I've recently been encouraged on #scheme to SRFI-ize my
posting of define-functor/instantiate-functor/with-functor, but
without addressing the whole macro issue I suspect that any module
system is pretty fundamentally dead in the water. Mind you, I don't
know if that is a good thing. Matthew Flatt's paper really only comes
into play when you have a macro system that requires eval, which
R[45]RS doesn't (and yes, that's a "worse is better" attitude).
david rush
--
We must become ourselves before someone else does
-- Robert Hunter
| |
| Taylor Campbell 2004-09-29, 5:00 am |
| David Rush <kumo@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message news:<cjbihj$b1e$3@pixie.nscp.aoltw.net>...
> Yes indeed. I've recently been encouraged on #scheme to SRFI-ize my
> posting of define-functor/instantiate-functor/with-functor, but
> without addressing the whole macro issue I suspect that any module
> system is pretty fundamentally dead in the water. Mind you, I don't
> know if that is a good thing. Matthew Flatt's paper really only comes
> into play when you have a macro system that requires eval, which
> R[45]RS doesn't (and yes, that's a "worse is better" attitude).
There's a difference between the module system supporting import &
export of macros and the module system gracefully handling evaluation
of Scheme code at macro-expand-time. Flatt's & Scheme48's module
systems support both (and I claim that Scheme48's does so 'better,' but
that's a different issue that isn't relevant here); most Scheme module
systems support only the former; and your functors support neither.
My upcoming proposal for a unification of module systems with SRFI 7's
feature configuration handles only the former, but with a very trivial
extension it also handles the latter similarly to Scheme48.
(Scheme48 also supports parameterized modules, much like your functors
except that they exist at the same level as the rest of the module
system and therefore support both of the above module system features.)
|
|
|
|
|