[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: point of view on mzscheme's module system



I recently reread the module system documentation and came away with 4
impressions:

(1) it's very good
(2) it's mildly hard to difficult to understand given the documentation
(3) a 'how to build a unit by example' document would be nice.
(4) it would be good to document the naming conventions used.


Will Fitzgerald

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-plt-scheme@fast.cs.utah.edu
> [mailto:owner-plt-scheme@fast.cs.utah.edu]On Behalf Of Gregory Lampshire
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 2:59 PM
> To: plt-scheme@fast.cs.utah.edu
> Subject: point of view on mzscheme's module system
>
>
> I am trying to develop a point of view on mzscheme's module
> system compared
> to the other scheme implementations as well as CL's package system.
> Although I do not care to fully appreciate some of the problems
> discussed in
> MFlatt's thesis and related papers, I can understand the basic
> parts of the
> arguments presented.  Based on it's design point, Mzscheme's module system
> is substantially different than the other implementations, and I think, a
> bit more complex.
>
> Is there a common point of view on mzscheme's module system which
> would help
> me understand it's value relative to the other module implementations in
> other schemes or CL?  Is there a consensus that it's design is a good one
> when employing mzscheme beyond the academic community?
>
>
>
>