Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com> writes:

> 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.

You *always* need to use a tool anyway, even if that tool is just
called "Thunderbird."

> 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.

That's no different than from any other setup where you have source
and object code, and we've learned how to deal with it quite well. Or
alternatively, think of "tar" und "untar" for distributing code.

> 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.

I am quite sure that we currently cannot.  The philosophical
differences between the various approaches are far too great.  Believe
me---we've tried very hard to bridge them, but without success so far.
One of the problems is that there's no agreement on what problems a
module system should really solve.  In the end, we agreed that the
requirements we were trying to address were mostly code distribution
and use, and the current proposal tries to do that quite specifically.

Moreover, there's still a lot of ongoing research that I expect to be
of significant practical impact in the years to come, which I'd prefer
not to block by setting in stone something inferior now.

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla