Re: Module Considerations

[Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>]

This, along with support for syntactic variants, are the best reasons
for keeping source and module declarations separate.  I'm quite in
favor of it.

>I second this item.  Since there are often good reasons for using more
>than one different Scheme interpreter for various purposes, I like to
>be able to write files of standard RnRS Scheme code which can be used
>by _all_ the Scheme interpreters that I work with.  I prefer not to
>keep separate copies of each of my "library" files for use with Guile,
>starting with
> (define-module ....)
>and replacing lots of
> (define ...)
>statements with
> (define-public ....)
>in the code.  It would be nice to be able to have a separate Guile
>module-description file which could 
> (include ...)
>one or more files of standard RnRS code and use a mechanism such as
> (export fn1 fn2 var1 var2 ...)
>present it to Guile as a module so that the Scheme code can be
>more independent of the Guile module system.