Module systems for Lisp like language

Our application use a lisp like language as extension language. We'd like to add a module/package/namespace system (chose the name you want, if the choice of name implies difference in characteristics for you, the choice hasn't probably be made yet).

I'd like not to repeat known mistakes, so I'm looking for a critical review of the design space with trade-off to be made, tempting choices that have be proven bad choices, and so on. Obviously, I'm also taker for recommendations on related specific points for which you'd have an experience you want to share.

Common Lisp package system tutorial

I found that learning the Common Lisp package system was an uphill struggle. What an ugly mess!

Being a lambda-the-ultimate sort of person I put on my language designers hat and start thinking about how Crowe's Computer Language would have a much better package/namespace system. Oh! From this vantage point the Common Lisp package system has a compelling logic to it.

I decided to try to write a tutorial that teaches the CL package system and tries to make it easy to understand by bringing out the logic behind the design. Judging by the lack of enthusiasm for my drafts on comp.lang.lisp I was failing hard and became discouraged and never finished it.

Despite that I keep it on line and hope that its emphasis on the logic behind design makes it useful to you.

By Alan Crowe at Fri, 2010-04-23 17:00 | login or register to post comments

See The Complete Idiotâ€™s

See The Complete Idiotâ€™s Guide to Common Lisp Packages by Erann Gat. Also, note that CL packages create namespaces for symbols, not functions, classes, etc.

By lencharest at Fri, 2010-04-23 23:10 | login or register to post comments

Readscheme module bibliography

While it is becoming a bit dated, my mini-bibliography on modules systems for functional programming languages might be useful to you:
http://readscheme.org/modules/

A good survey is the paper by Christian Queinnec: "23 things I know about modules for Scheme".

By jim-bender at Sat, 2010-04-24 02:31 | login or register to post comments

At first look it is

At first look it is precisely the kind of thing I was looking for. Thanks.

By Jean-Marc Bourguet at Sat, 2010-04-24 08:07 | login or register to post comments

Some pointers

EVAL-WHEN considered harmful to your mental health discusses the importance of being able to deterministically build systems, which may be something to consider if your Lisp does compilation. PLT Scheme has a similar deterministic build system, see next item.
The Adventures of a Pythonista in Schemeland is a great resource, that includes some excrutiatingly detailed articles on modules and related issues. (I call it "everything you never wanted to know about Scheme", but when you're designing a module system, it's good to know it ;-)).
The recently discussed Extending the Scope of Syntactic Abstraction is a nice paper that shows off "micromodularity", i.e. modules inside lambdas etc.
Fully-parameterized, first-class modules with hygienic macros, about putting macros into module interfaces to allow separate compilation (and also about separating module interfaces from implementations).

Ah, and when you're in an adventurous mood, you might also want to consider skipping the whole issue, and simply using first-class environments. Just kidding. :-P

(Edit: first-class environments are enlightening when thinking about modules, even when the resulting module system doesn't have them.)

By Manuel J. Simoni at Sat, 2010-04-24 14:02 | login or register to post comments

Lambda the Ultimate

User login

Navigation