[plt-scheme] Re: BUG: 206, modules and SRFI 1

At Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:52:30 -0800, "Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
> 
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 08:40:57PM +0100, Michael Sperber wrote:
> >   For list-related administrative tasks:
> >   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
> > 
> > >>>>> "John" == John Kozak <jk at xylema.org> writes:
> > 
> > >> It's not a bug, it's a feature! ;-)
> > 
> > John> Smiley noted, but it still looks like a bug to me!  At the very least,
> > John> there's a big problem somewhere if the SRFI people are writing cheques
> > John> that the plt module system can't cash (cleanly).
> > 
> > Arguably, it's a bug in SRFI 1 which specifies replacements (rather
> > than additions) to R5RS.
> 
> It specifies extensions, which seems quite reasonable for a SRFI.
> 
> > The PLT module system gives you a chance to deal with it in an orderly
> > manner, but you need to deal with it nevertheless.
> 
> It's messy, though. I've long wanted a cleaner/easier way to deal with
> this, but I haven't had time to work out a good solution.

 From what I can tell, it seems like the right extensions to `require'
would do the trick. In principle, require is extensible so it might
even be feasible to come up with a prototype implementation of the new
require.

Robby