Module System (was Re: A useful syntax for regexps and other things)

[Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@mit.edu>]

kwright@tiac.net (Keith Wright) wrote:
> With that said, I also don't think it is very important.  I wish we
> were discussing modules.  How can anybody use Guile while the module
> system is non-standard, obscure, about to change to something not yet
> designed, and requires writing non-standard "define-public" all
> through your program?

I hope the module system rewrite comes along soon as well. However,
your complaint that the current module system is non-standard can't
really be fixed, given that there is no standard for a Scheme module
system.

Also, I took a look at the Scheme48 module system recently (Jim
Blandy's said he'd like to be compatible with it) and it seemed
obscure in a lot of ways. I hope Guile's eventual module system does
not name the form that defines a module "define-structure", which I
think is a very misleading name. Also, Scheme48's module system does
not seem to support renaming symbols imported from a module to make
using two modules with name conflicts convenient. I think this is an
important feature.

 - Maciej