Taylor Campbell <xxxxxx@mumble.net> writes:

>    Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:33:34 +0100
>    From: Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
>
> It does, though, make it difficult to extend in the current syntax
> in a way that bear wants.  Grovelling through the source to
> libraries is not an option, but currently the EXPORT syntax is
> embedded in the library bodies.

But in a way that's trivial to extract.

>    - Macros require you to have some representation of the source code of
>      the library you're importing anyway.  (Some people might argue this
>      is a design mistake in the library syntax---several people are
>      working on macro/module systems that don't have this property.  But
>      once again, (very) active ongoing research, not ready for R6RS.)
>
> This is true (except I don't see why you need the source code and not
> just any representation of the code, source or compiled),

Yes; I worded this very poorly.  What I meant is that you need access
to the implementation of modules you import in many cases anyway; the
(implied) interface is not enough.

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