[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library"

Am 22.06.2011 23:47, schrieb Aaron W. Hsu:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:49:28 -0400, John Cowan<cowan@x>
> wrote:
>> By keeping the systems syntactically separate
> I do not buy the argument that we are making things better by using
> "module" instead of "library" in this case. The module term is much more
> common throughout, including systems in Chez, PLT, Scheme48 (I believe),
> among others.

This is also the feeling that I had. (Bigloo and Chicken are two others 
which use "module" for existing forms.) I feel that clashing with all of 
these implementations substantially increases the burden for these 
systems' implementors to adopt to R7RS, and that consistency with R6RS - 
to which several implementations are already adopted, and for which 
several libraries have been written - should be the key consideration 
here. (Personally, I find it a no-brainer to adopt the R6RS syntax 
instead of yet again inventing something new, but YMMV, naturally).

I am not exactly in the position to request this (I am not part of the 
WG as you obviously know), but you might want reconsider the decision 
for "library" in the light of these concerns.

Denis Washington

Scheme-reports mailing list