[plt-scheme] R6RS libraries

From: Matthew Flatt (mflatt at cs.utah.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 1 11:51:40 EDT 2006

At Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:26:21 +0100, "Paulo J. Matos" wrote:
> On 01/08/06, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> > At Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:54:11 +0100, "Paulo J. Matos" wrote:
> > > As far as I understand R6RS reports from the commitee, 'libraries'
> > > will be the standard 'PLT modules'.
> >
> > `library' will be the standard R5RS form,
> you mean R6RS here, right?


> > but we'll keep using `module'
> > for PLT Scheme code.
> >
> Why is that?
> Note I don't know SRFI-83 very well but are there any advantages of
> module over libraries? If yes, why didn't the committee adopt the PLT
> module system? Any ideas?

It's not clear how closely the R6RS `library' form will resemble
SRFI-83, but it will certainly have some limitations compared to
`module'. For example, macros will not be allowed to expand to
`require' or `provide' (or `import' or `export').

At the same time, `library' may end up with less restrictions related
to phases and module instantiation.

In each case, the extra capability of one design or the other might be
considered an "advantage" or "disadvantage". After some debate, the
editors eventually vote --- and in the end, that's all the explanation
there is.


Posted on the users mailing list.