* Jörg F. Wittenberger <joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net> [130411 18:36]: > To sum up: I feel this would be a task to be performed inside > the compiler and not by some precompile script. > > > Feasible? Rational? How do you guys thing ot it. > > Find attached the modified code of yesterdays foobar example, > which does work. (Including a Makefile ;-)
Are you aware of the "filename" form of the module construct? You can have your portable code in the file as it is, then build a module file which loads your implementation and you can specify which identifiers should be visible to the outside world. That sounds a lot easier to me than what you are currently doing. For example: File foo.scm: (module foo (procedure1 procedure2) "foo-impl.scm") foo-impl.scm contains your original code. Or does this miss an important point here? Kind regards, Christian -- In the world, there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong, nothing can surpass it. --- Lao Tzu _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
