Re: About modules

[Marius Vollmer <mvo at zagadka dot ping dot de>]

[ I cc this to the list because I think this should not be discussed
  behind the scenes. ]

Greg Troxel <gdt@fnord.ir.bbn.com> writes:

> If your point is
> 
>  what we are doing with namespaces under the term 'modules' is all
>  well and good, but we shouldn't call it 'modules'
> 
> then I understood you, and agree.  If you meant to say that something
> about the current 'module system' effort is misguided, I didn't
> understand it.

I don't want to go so far as to call the current effort misguided.
However, I think the view that I expressed can help to simplify the
design space significantly and can lead to a more constructive
approach.

For example, we shouldn't need to talk about the concept of
instantiable and parameterizable `units' that MzScheme has.  In my
view, the issues addressed by units can be solved nicely with a
combination of GOOPS and name spaces.  In effect, units have some of
the characteristics of an object system, but we already have something
better (GOOPS) which can be used instead.