Re: Module names

[Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@mit.edu>]

chris.bitmead@misys.com.au writes:
> 
> 
> Basicly, I tend to disagree, because I feel it's good, (for teaching
> purposes if nothing
> else) if conceptually, the module system *could* be implemented in terms of
> Scheme's basic constructs if need be.

Which part of my message that you quoted do you specifically disagree
with, and why? It's hard to tell from your message.

> It may not be efficient to do so, but
> then
> many of Scheme's features can be implemented more efficiently by making
> them
> special cases, but all of them can be defined in terms of the 5 basic
> constructs.
> 
> Again, take my comments with a grain of salt, because I'm not a module
> expert.
> 
> 
> >I think people would find it very confusing to see syntax that
> >requires a quoted symbol but will not accept other values that
> >evaluate to a symbol. I've never heard of anything in any Scheme
> >dialect that worked that way.
> >
> >Incidentally, I don't think there should be a (MODULE ...) syntax to
> >directly access the symbols of a module, IMO modules should be
> >distinct from procedures, so compatibility is not an issue.
> >
>  - Maciej