[plt-scheme] Why Modules?

From: Robby Findler (robby at cs.uchicago.edu)
Date: Thu Nov 20 21:09:27 EST 2008

And where "syntax" here includes all manner of compile-time
information, including type information.


On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Sam TH <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Ittai Balaban <balaban at cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> I've been looking into units, specifically the '99 "Cool Units..." paper.
>> Apologies for reopening old threads, but I did not see this answered:
>> In many respects (syntax bindings not included)
> You've hit on the answer right here.  For the purposes of handling
> syntax, modules are essential.  For more information on this, see
> "Composable and Compilable Macros", by Flatt, ICFP 02.
>>, units provide a much richer
>> framework than modules - the latter cannot be assembled compositionally,
>> prohibit cyclic dependencies, and do not allow multiple instantiations.
>> Thus, my question is, since you make such a convincing case for units in the
>> '99 paper, why did PLT find it necessary to introduce a new abstraction in
>> the form of modules? Did you run into some intrinsic limitations of units?
>> This is interesting, btw, because in the so called mainstream world of
>> enterprise java, people are looking outside of the language to unit-like
>> frameworks like OSGi to get around the limitations shared by Java packages
>> and PLT modules.
> --
> sam th
> samth at ccs.neu.edu
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme

Posted on the users mailing list.