Re: New module system wishlist

[Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>]

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

>    * cleanliness:
> 
>      A module should be able to be totally clean.  There should be no
>      need to have *any* extra bindings in a module (a la
>      %module-interface or `define-module').
> 
> What is the define-module binding for in the current module system?

`define-module' is used for defining a module.  :)

I mean no need for "extra bindings" being visible in the module.

The binding of the form in the new system corresponding to
`define-module' should not live in module space but in configuration
space.

>      Therefore, we should have at least one dedicated "command" or
>      "config" or "repl" module.
> 
>      It would probably be a good idea to follow other good Scheme
>      interpreters' lead and introduce the ,<command> syntax for walking
>      around modules, inspecting things, entering the debugger, etc.
>      Such commands can be looked up in this repl module.
> 
>      If we insist on not using ,<command> syntax, we are forced to let
>      the module use list consist of a "sticky" part and the rest, where
>      the "sticky" part is only available at the repl prompt and not to
>      the code within the module, and which follows us when we walk around
>      in the system.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand this at all.  Could you explain further?

Look at Scheme48 or RScheme.