Re: module questions

[Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org>]

On Dec 29, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> A way around this problem would be a `require' form that gets only
> non-syntax from some module, and where all imported names are listed
> explicitly. In that case, it would not be necessary to consult the
> imported module at all (until invocation time, to check that the named
> variables are really exported).
> 
> But for now, as we explore the balance between modules and units (just
> as we continue to explore the balance between functions and objects),
> leaving mutual recursion to units seems best.

So, wouldn't it be correct to say that the basic reason you can get
mutual dependencies with units is that they don't handle syntax?  If
this is true, then it looks like a good reason for allowing some form
of non-syntax require...

(BTW, wouldn't some implicit way look more elegant? -- like allowing
such dependency if when tracing the modules there is no dependency
cycle that involves exported syntax.)

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!