Am 22.06.2011 23:47, schrieb Aaron W. Hsu:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:49:28 -0400, John Cowan<cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
> 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.

Regards,
Denis Washington

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports