Re: New module system wishlist

[Clark McGrew <mcgrew at ale dot physics dot sunysb dot edu>]

>>>>> "Neil" == Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

    Neil> I think what I had in mind, when I wrote the above, was that
    Neil> we should not feel afraid of making the new module system
    Neil> completely different in design from the existing one, if
    Neil> that is what emerges from the current discussion of
    Neil> desiderata.  I then unnecessarily mapped "difference of
    Neil> design" onto "difference of interface".

In which case I agree with you.  I assume that "backward
compatibility" on the wish list means "superficial syntatic backward
compatibilty"  or practically, "doesn't break old code".  

    Neil> Actually, there is still _an_ argument against such
    Neil> emulation, which discounts the pain of having to change
    Neil> existing code against the potential future confusion of
    Neil> having a "non-orthogonal" module API.  

For me, the ideal module system will include the superficial highlevel
syntax of the current system.  I think the only "fixed points" are
"(define-module (module-name))", "(use-module (module-name))" and
"(export a-symbol)".  I'm not even arguing that all of the current
features of those forms have to be supported.

Cheers,

Clark