This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Basicly, I tend to disagree, because I feel it's good, (for teaching purposes if nothing else) if conceptually, the module system *could* be implemented in terms of Scheme's basic constructs if need be. It may not be efficient to do so, but then many of Scheme's features can be implemented more efficiently by making them special cases, but all of them can be defined in terms of the 5 basic constructs. Again, take my comments with a grain of salt, because I'm not a module expert. >I think people would find it very confusing to see syntax that >requires a quoted symbol but will not accept other values that >evaluate to a symbol. I've never heard of anything in any Scheme >dialect that worked that way. > >Incidentally, I don't think there should be a (MODULE ...) syntax to >directly access the symbols of a module, IMO modules should be >distinct from procedures, so compatibility is not an issue. > - Maciej