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] |
mike@olan.com writes: > Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com> writes: > > > (Hoping to resurrect a promising topic...) > > A definite success. > > > I'd add: > > (RFI ...) > The submodules have the names (numbers?) of cataloged RFI's. For > instance, Olin Shivers' list lib will probably be (I'm making it up) > RFI #1, and any program that relies on it would be able to say: > > (use-modules (rfi 1)) ;use the common list functions. > I don't like this suggestion, especially referencing RFIs by number. I certainly expect them to also have nice symbolic names. But beyond this, I think we should just put RFI-implementing modules wherever is convenient in the functional namespace, for instance I'd suggest putting the list lib in question under (util lists) or (util list). In many cases we will probably want to use something other than the sample implementation anyway, either to rewrite some or all in C for efficiency or because some of the relevant bindings might already be in the Guile core, or whatever other reasons. Of course, if there is ever an officially blessed Scheme module system and RFIs get standardized package names we may want to reconsider this. - Maciej