Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #3

[Neil Jerram]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> For `current-reader' I think we should stick as we are.
>
> Then, should we go ahead and remove the `current-module' and
> `set-current-module' procedures in favor of `current-module' as a fluid?
> By not exporting the fluid directly, my original patch kept away from
> such a highly controversial debate.  ;-)

:-)  If we were starting from a clean slate, then yes, I'd agree.  But
starting from where we are now, I don't think it's worth changing what
already exists.

Note BTW that both current-module and current-reader are
Guile-specific.  For implementing something not Guile-specific, we
should also take into account portability of the chosen syntax; but
for these cases we don't need to.

(Sudden confusion: Are fluids part of R5RS?  If so, why do we need the
parameters SRFI?  I guess I need to go and reread it.)

> The "principle of least surprise" _is_ important for people coming to
> the language/implementation.

Yes, but as ever there are other principles too, in this case back
compatibility and simplicity.

       Neil