[plt-scheme] module hierarchy

From: Carl Eastlund (cce at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Sun Jul 9 15:01:12 EDT 2006

Jos, you might want to look into the unit system.  Units are like
modules in many respects, but they are runtime values and much more
flexible than modules.  Units can contain other units, they can be
combined dynamically, they can be combined mutually recursively, and
so forth.

On 7/9/06, Jos Koot <jos.koot at telefonica.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> I like the protection that modules provide against modifying their variables
> by code that requires the modules. I also like the shielding of scope, even
> in syntax definitions. Beautiful! A module may, in thought, be devided in
> submodules, the main module simply requiring the submodules and calling or
> providing whatever is to be supplied to the user. Likewise submodules may
> require subsubmodules, and so on. However, as I understand, every module
> must be located in its own file, which makes all submodules evenly
> accessible to the user, contrary to my concept of dividing a main module in
> hidden submodules. Is there a technical reason why a module must not contain
> other modules? If there is no such technical problem, has it been considered
> to allow submodules to be declared and required within a module?
> Jos Koot
> ((((lambda(x)((((((x x)x)x)x)x)x))
>    (lambda(x)(lambda(y)(x(x y)))))
>   (lambda(x)(write x)x))
>  "greetings, Jos")

Carl Eastlund
"Cynical, but technically correct."

Posted on the users mailing list.