On 05/12/2013 09:54 PM, Mikael wrote:
> Suggestion:
>
> Please find a way so that the library body in the library definition
> file is at the top level.
>
> One way would be to allow a variant of |define-library| of 5.6.1. to be
> used as (define-library (library name))
> and then provide the (library declaration):s subsequent to this one,
> with the exception of the |begin| library
> declaration whose contents are inlined by themselves.
>
> I'd guess many times the Scheme file's filename would provide the
> information otherwise provided by
> (define-library (library name)) , so that that line could be made
> optional generally also.

I was planning on proposing an SRFI for this - after/if R7RS is
ratified (and after I finalize at least some of my pending SRFIs).

Kawa supports something very similar to what I think you're asking for:
http://www.gnu.org/software/kawa/Module-classes.html
However, Kawa has its own syntax and conventions; the plan is
to propose a design similar in concept to Kawa, but compatible
with R7RS syntax and concepts.

BTW Kawa supports mutually dependent modules/libraries, which
neither R6RS nor R7RS support, though in practice it seems
very desirable  It does add some complication, of course,
and some semantic issues - but I think they're not inherently
worse than mutually dependent definitions in a single top-level.
(Though if you start worrying about phasing ...  My solution
is to not worry about phasing.)

Note a related issue: Once you associate a library with a file,
then you probably want to also define naming convention so
you can find a library's file name from the library name.
That is considered outside the scope of R7RS, but I think
it would be suitable for the SRFI I'm talking about.
--
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/

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