Re: Guile modularity (was Re: message primitive)

["Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>]

Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:

> "Greg J. Badros" <gjb@cs.washington.edu> writes:
> 
> > I'm fine w/ no leading %, but was just considered about R[45]RS
> > compatiblity/portability issues.
> 
> Which issues were you thinking about?
> 
> Guile should of course have a pure R5RS module.  Programs using this
> module would be guaranteed a 100% clean environment.  (Yes, 100%.  A
> module system which can't support this is flawed.)

My concern is just how does this "pure R5RS" module get used.  Are
primitives necessarily in that, do we make the R5RS module undefine the
extra primitives, or what?

<snip>

> I don't think a "simple-format" would do harm in the toolbox module.

And I'd bet it actually would *help*!  Or else I wouldn't have brought
this up! :-)

Thanks,
Greg