Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: Making programs out of modules in Scheme Message-ID: <6449@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> Date: 21 Jun 91 12:31:39 GMT Article-I.D.: goanna.6449 References: <6384@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 18 In article , markf@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Mark Friedman) writes: > Without LOAD it is not so trivial. LOAD is not in IEEE standard Scheme > (at least not in my draft). Excuse me while I scream quietly ...... ah, that's better. Right. It's in the R^nRS, but not the p1178 draft I have either. > The question is whether the standard language has sufficient capabilities > to build a module system. Without LOAD or EVAL I don't see how to do it. Ok, so standard Scheme + LOAD is sufficient to build a module system (if you want nested modules, it doesn't get a lot harder), but LOAD is not standard. Indeed, it appears that a standard Scheme system would be within its rights to demand that it be presented with the whole program in one file. -- I agree with Jim Giles about many of the deficiencies of present UNIX.