Andre van Tonder <xxxxxx@now.het.brown.edu> writes:

> Since modules were supposed to be one of the two major language
> issues for R6RS, does this perhaps suggest that it is too soon for
> R6RS, that the mandate has changed, or that it was never clear to
> begin with? ;-)

That it wasn't clear to begin with.  People associate radically
different things with the word "module" or "module system":

- configuration management
- interchangeable parts
- namespace management
- hygiene
- encapsulation
- separate compilation
- independent compilation
- optimization
- ...

Some of these goals conflict, at least among the module systems and
designs we've looked at, which is why we (eventually) narrowed down
the list of requirements.  I'll be happy to elaborate, but it's a long
tortuous story ... :-)

> Anyway, it seems that R6RS libraries solve the same problems as the PLT
> module system (which is fine).  Would that be a accurate statement?

No.  The PLT module system has obvious differences to this one.  This
one most prominently has static dependencies and static (if implicit)
interfaces, which PLT's MODULE does not.

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