This site is a static rendering of the Trac instance that was used by R7RS-WG1 for its work on R7RS-small (PDF), which was ratified in 2013. For more information, see Home.

Source for ticket #514

cc


    
changetime

    
2013-07-07 03:20:44

    
component

    
WG1 - Core

    
description

    
Aaron Hsu writes:

  While I understand and support to some degree the change of module syntax to favor a more extensible syntax, the way in which this was extended bothers me to some degree. This would include the `include-`{`ci`,`library-declarations`} forms, which feel ugly and unnecessary. Indeed, they are necessary largely because of the limitations on the way that we have treated modules, and I would have preferred to make modules extensible in the Scheme way, rather than the way that we have, but what we have is a compromise.


    
id

    
514

    
keywords

    

    
milestone

    

    
owner

    
alexshinn

    
priority

    
major

    
reporter

    
cowan

    
resolution

    
wontfix

    
severity

    

    
status

    
closed

    
summary

    
New module syntax is ugly and unnecessary

    
time

    
2013-05-13 08:37:34

    
type

    
defect

    
Changes

    
Change at time 2013-07-07 03:20:44

    
author

    
cowan

    
field

    
comment

    
newvalue

    
The WG decided by unanimous consent to take no action on this ticket.

    
oldvalue

    
2

    
raw-time

    
1373142044410382

    
ticket

    
514

    
time

    
2013-07-07 03:20:44

    
Change at time 2013-07-07 03:20:44

    
author

    
cowan

    
field

    
resolution

    
newvalue

    
wontfix

    
oldvalue

    

    
raw-time

    
1373142044410382

    
ticket

    
514

    
time

    
2013-07-07 03:20:44

    
Change at time 2013-07-07 03:20:44

    
author

    
cowan

    
field

    
status

    
newvalue

    
closed

    
oldvalue

    
new

    
raw-time

    
1373142044410382

    
ticket

    
514

    
time

    
2013-07-07 03:20:44

    
Change at time 2013-05-21 01:25:01

    
author

    
cowan

    
field

    
comment

    
newvalue

    
The case for `include` variants is that they promote modularity, specifically modularity between code bodies and library declarations, the former often being more portable than the latter.  They could have been subsumed by a low-level macro facility, it's true.

Static library systems like those of R6RS and the draft are intentionally weak in the interest of making them easy to implement and use, thus promoting interchange.  The draft's variant of R6RS lacks only library versioning (see #491) and explicit phasing information (which has a strange status in R6RS: it is not portable to omit it, but implementations are free to ignore it).  I agree that what we have is a compromise, and compromises by nature tend to satisfy nobody; the best hope is that all can live with them.

    
oldvalue

    
1

    
raw-time

    
1369074301254009

    
ticket

    
514

    
time

    
2013-05-21 01:25:01