From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Keith Wright Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: rfc (define-module ... #:use-modules ...) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 00:05:13 -0400 Message-ID: <200710070405.l9745DBe003737@fcs13.keithdiane.us> References: <87przvnf6i.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <200710052347.l95Nlojq003807@fcs13.keithdiane.us> <877im0lg1x.fsf@ambire.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1191733369 11451 80.91.229.12 (7 Oct 2007 05:02:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 05:02:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: ttn@gnuvola.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 07 07:02:47 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IeNPw-00021u-J3 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 06:07:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IeNPr-0003OT-7I for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:06:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IeNPn-0003N6-Gh for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:06:51 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IeNPm-0003Lt-Li for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:06:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IeNPm-0003Lh-Gk for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:06:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.4]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IeNPm-0004EO-0g for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:06:50 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 13488 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2007 04:06:43 -0000 Original-Received: from dsl.keithdiane.us (HELO fcs12.keithdiane.us) ([66.92.74.188]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Oct 2007 04:06:43 -0000 Original-Received: from fcs13.keithdiane.us (fcs13 [192.168.1.112]) by fcs12.keithdiane.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F19D237D66; Sun, 7 Oct 2007 00:06:39 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from fcs13.keithdiane.us (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by fcs13.keithdiane.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id C998AAE0001; Sun, 7 Oct 2007 00:05:17 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (from kwright@localhost) by fcs13.keithdiane.us (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id l9745DBe003737; Sun, 7 Oct 2007 00:05:13 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: fcs13.keithdiane.us: kwright set sender to kwright@keithdiane.us using -f In-reply-to: <877im0lg1x.fsf@ambire.localdomain> (message from Thien-Thi Nguyen on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:59:22 +0200) X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:6194 Archived-At: > From: Thien-Thi Nguyen > > for me, it means everyone interested should say what they would > (or would not) do and then if there is concensus (after some > refinement), i follow. if there is no concensus, i muddle > through the best i can (as always). from the sound of the > responses thus far, this is the most likely outcome. Consensus - same sense or feeling (<-Latin sentire) Concensus - if that were a word, it might mean same head-count Anyway carry on. Or muddle on. My opinion means little with no code to back it up, and I have none. > If you want to harmonize, maybe both branches could > think about implementing R6RS library forms. > > the library body is specified to be included in the `library' > form. OTOH, `define-module' is a peer top-level form to the > library body. how would you reconcile these approaches? I don't want to rudely inject my opinion, but if you keep asking quesions it would be rude not to answer. I am not totally sure I understand the question. Are you worried about the systactic difference between (define-module blah blah) (def xx) (xx xx xx) versus (library blah blah (def xx) (xx xx xx) ) ? The later (with parentheses on both sides) seems more lispy to me, but it seems like a pretty trivial change of syntax. It would be more interesting to learn about the deep magick hidden in the blah blah. I would leave modules alone for backward compatibility, and try to add something with the (library ...) syntax but with an underlying semantics as much as possible like the current module system. Then I would write a paper or manifesto on the exact reasons why libraries and modules are too different to be inter- changeable. At least, that is how I would reconcile the two approaches if I were even to begin reconciliation. In the real world, I will type my pipe dream to the mailling list and then go to bed and not care about it in the morning. -- Keith _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user