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

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Denis Washington (04 Jul 2011 18:02 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" John Cowan (05 Jul 2011 00:39 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Andre van Tonder (05 Jul 2011 01:31 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" John Cowan (05 Jul 2011 04:06 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Denis Washington (07 Jul 2011 16:06 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" John Cowan (07 Jul 2011 17:53 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Denis Washington (07 Jul 2011 18:30 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Alaric Snell-Pym (08 Jul 2011 09:49 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Denis Washington (08 Jul 2011 10:13 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Alaric Snell-Pym (08 Jul 2011 10:46 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Eli Barzilay (08 Jul 2011 14:16 UTC)

[Scheme-reports] Programming languages and implementation strategies John Cowan (09 Jul 2011 02:43 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Aaron W. Hsu (05 Jul 2011 04:46 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" John Cowan (05 Jul 2011 04:53 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Andre van Tonder (05 Jul 2011 13:47 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Alex Shinn (05 Jul 2011 14:20 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Andy Wingo (05 Jul 2011 22:01 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Alex Shinn (05 Jul 2011 23:21 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Eli Barzilay (06 Jul 2011 03:33 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" John Cowan (05 Jul 2011 17:11 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Andre van Tonder (05 Jul 2011 22:07 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Alex Shinn (05 Jul 2011 23:22 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" John Cowan (08 Jul 2011 03:31 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "module" vs. "library" Aaron W. Hsu 05 Jul 2011 04:45 UTC

On Monday, July 04, 2011 08:39:05 pm John Cowan wrote:
> Come up with a good answer and I'll have the question reopened.

This just illustrates why choosing a syntax that is not backwards compatible
with R6RS, yet is a feature subset of it is a bad idea. This issue wouldn't
exist if we took the subset of features in R6RS that we currently use and use
the R6RS syntax.

	Aaron W. Hsu

--
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.

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