On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:38:26 -0500, Vincent Manis <vmanis@telus.net> wrote:

> I have considerable reservations about making modules optional. This is
> a license to create incompatibility. Suppose that there are 10 optional
> modules; then there is a potential of 2^10 = 1024 different combinations
> of modules an individual implementation might offer (ignoring module
> dependencies). Some implementers might choose not to provide a given
> module because they have an alternative they consider better. This in
> turn will put paid to portability, not only of software, but also of
> teaching materials about the language.

My opinion here is that the WG2 should mandate that if a particular
feature is available in the implementation, then to be compliant, it must
provide that feature in at least a form compatible with the standard
module that provides that feature. In other words, this guarantees that
any system that is compliant with the WG2 Scheme will not have
alternatives without also providing the standard interfaces. The only
problem there is Schemes which do not have the feature in question, which
is a much less troublesome problem to begin with.

	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