Group Email Manager

login signup
Re: [Scheme-reports] Questions about cond-expand John Cowan (05 Sep 2012 06:43 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Questions about cond-expand Alex Shinn (05 Sep 2012 08:14 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Questions about cond-expand John Cowan (06 Sep 2012 04:29 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Questions about cond-expand Alex Shinn (06 Sep 2012 04:34 UTC)
Re: Questions about cond-expand John Cowan (06 Sep 2012 04:46 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Questions about cond-expand Alex Shinn (06 Sep 2012 05:06 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Questions about cond-expand John Cowan (06 Sep 2012 05:42 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] Fixing libraries (was Re: Questions about cond-expand) Per Bothner (07 Sep 2012 00:00 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Questions about cond-expand Aaron W. Hsu (06 Sep 2012 12:31 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] Fixing libraries (was Re: Questions about cond-expand) Per Bothner 06 Sep 2012 23:57 UTC 
On 09/06/2012 03:58 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:ity -
> Chez modules cannot be implemented by every
> other system, nor can Scheme48 modules, but
> the R7RS define-library form can.

Not to argue for or against "Chez-style" modules,
but is this really meaningful?  The point of R7RS is
to specify and language, and so every other system
that claims to modify R7RS would have to be *modified*
to implemented the specification.

I assume you mean that Chez modules are be so
*fundamentally* different from other module systems
that it would be need a huge and unreasonable re-write
that it would not be reasonable for R7RS.
--
	--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