Bear wrote:
> I want to be sure that a module system for scheme should
> be *at least* that useful in resolving dependencies and
> supporting separated compilation.

When some library A is compiled, the compiler could include all sorts
of interesting annotations about the exported identifiers in the
compiled form.  Then, when compiling a library B that imports A, the
compiler must visit A, and thus gets a chance to pick up that groovy
information.

In other words, the fact that libraries may export macros requires a
tight enough binding between one compilation and the next that the
compiler can also silently pass whatever static information it likes
about a library's exports to libraries that import it.

(I think.  It's late.)