Michael Sperber wrote:
> You guys aren't digging what this SRFI is, I think: It's a
> *distribution format*.  The idea is that you send this stuff to your
> friends or download it from somewhere, and then let your Scheme
> implementation slurp it into its package library or whatever, possibly
> (and probably) translating it into a format more suitable for its
> internal processing.

And then after I edit it, I have to use a different tool to unslurp it
and send it back.

And when I maintain it in CVS (in the portable distribution format,
because it isn't implementation-specific), I have two have copies
on my disk, and my 'make' scripts have to be careful to keep them
in synch, and I have to be careful to not edit the wrong copy.

The pragmatics of this model seem really bad.

> I don't expect PLT Scheme or Chez or Scheme 48 to change their module
> systems much or to stop developing new ones as a result of this
> SRFI---rather I expect that their authors will implement "translators"
> from and to the distribution format specified here.

This is admitting defeat: We don't need to come up with a practical
module system because it's only meant for distribution.  Come on -
we can do better than that.

The key concept is "source code" - the "preferred human-readable
format for studying and modifying programs" (to paraphrase the FSF by
memory).  That is what we need to standardize.  Trying to standardize
a distribution format as anything except a collection of source code
units is something you worry about *after* you've standardized the
source code format.

If you want a distribution format, build on one of the standards:
zip or (compressed) tar or MIME.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/