On Thu 19 May 2011 19:39, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> writes:

> Andy Wingo scripsit:
>
>> I find it a bit jarring to see "delay" so far away from "force".  Now
>> that we have modules, why not reorganize things a little bit?  It's
>> probably OK to have syntax not all in one section.
>>
>> I also think that the notation "FOO module procedure" is a bit too
>> understated, and would benefit from modules being documented in their
>> own sections.
>
> The WG consensus was to keep the R5RS structure as much as possible,
> since many people have internalized it.  When using an R7RS
> implementation casually, the expectation is that you don't much have to
> care what module an identifier is in: only when writing a module do you
> need to be careful.

Hmmmmm.  Well, I won't argue it further, but would like to note that I
disagree with both of these points:

  (1) clarity helps our current users, and (hopefully) the number of
  scheme's future users are more numerous than its past users; and

  (2) at least beyond wg1 you are definitely going to be concerned about
  where your binding for `open-database' is coming from.

Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/

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