This is the mail archive of the guile@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Guile project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: pssyntax.ss and module system



["clean" modules]

"Matthias Clasen" <Matthias.Clasen@poet.de> writes:
> (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/papers/popl99.ps.gz) in which Waddell and

Thanks for the pointer!  There is one thing that concerns me however:

They seem to extend the Scheme language itself with the special forms
"module" and "import" and build the module system on top of the R5RS
language + the macro facility + the two special forms, don't they?

The problem with this is: How should the module system scope the macro
facility, the R5RS language or the two special forms istelf?

In Rees' system the module system is *not* part of the language
itself and although the module configuration language looks similar
to scheme, it can only be used to configure the module system.


I think it pays to compare their solution with what Tung proposes in
his dissertation.  -- For example Tung's module system "grabs"
auxiliary bindings from a syntax module, while their solution does not
require special support from the module system.  Which solution is
better?


Jost


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]