Re: [Chicken-users] Writing documentation for use/include/require/etc

[Will Farr]

Felix,

> (I'd like to add here that there are about 50 ways of doing almost
> everything in a reasonable featureful Lisp dialect. If a particular form
> is not found useful or estethically pleasing, one can simply use
> a different flavor. TIMTOWTDI, FWIW. Yes, this is confusing for beginners,
> admittedly)

I'm curious if you've given any thought to adopting the module
mechanism from R6RS.  I know that you really hated the result of R6RS,
but I don't know how you feel about the proposed module system in
particular.  Personally, I think it eliminates nearly all the (require
...), (require-for-syntax ...), (use ...), (include ...), ...
confusion.  Said confusion is, of course, replaced by a bit more
effort on the part of the implementor to handle the "level" separation
(run-time is level 0, syntax expansion is level 1, syntax in syntax is
level 2, ....) and keep track of the modules to which every binding
belongs.  In exchange for this effort, however, your users get to
replace all the compile-time/run-time/interpret-time
use/include/require-for-syntax stuff with (import ...).

Do you have any plans for Chicken vis a vis the R6RS module system (or
something similar)?

Will