Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@synthcode.com> wrote:
> [ cc'ing xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org which is a better place for this
>   discussion ]

...as well as where?

>    Ben> Elsewhere, I see an overall consensus: We Need Modules.
> Most definitely.  That is probably the single biggest problem facing
> Scheme right now... until we get a module system, the average Scheme
> script will never work on more than one Scheme, no matter how similar
> the Schemes in question.

I'm not so sure.  Modules are nice (they beat load at least), but which of
the many different implementations of modules do you pick to standardise on?
Do you try to standardise a naming convention too?  There you hit the thorns
and it's not a fatal flaw, so a lot of people seem to ignore it.

> It limits our ability to share code - anything
> from one Scheme always requires munging to work with another

Editing the start of the script (which you'll need to do anyway to change
the interpreter &c, most likely) isn't really mashing until no good.

> That's just sad... I know of no other language with a formal standard for
> which that is the case. [...]

Take your pick...

> Yet another option is to do what CPAN does (I don't know of any other
> public code repository as large or successful) [...]

How are you defining success?  To me, CPAN tends to look rather like the
librarians were asleep while stock intake occurred.  If we can avoid that
problem, we will have done well.

MJR