On 12/10/10 22:09, John Cowan wrote:
> Thomas Chust scripsit:
>
>> few Scheme compilers would report (cons (x)) as a compile time error
>> for lack of static type information.
>
> You don't need any, unless you are prepared to handle reassigning (as
> opposed to rebinding) the name. As long as con
Fellow Chickeneers,
when investigating the problem described in ticket #450, Christian and I
had a discussion about whether it makes sense to be able to import
modules for which the extension defining them has not yet been
loaded. In the situation described in the ticket this was the case with
the
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 06:27:56PM +0100, Moritz Heidkamp wrote:
> Fellow Chickeneers,
>
> when investigating the problem described in ticket #450, Christian and I
> had a discussion about whether it makes sense to be able to import
> modules for which the extension defining them has not yet been
* Alan Post [101211 18:42]:
> Generally, however, it is a bit annoying that import is an
> all-or-nothing thing, tightly binding sets of libraries together by
> not being able to separate importing from loading. Your e-mail here
> notwithstanding.
Generally that is exactly what import does: Sepa
From: Moritz Heidkamp
Subject: [Chicken-hackers] importing modules of not yet loaded extensions
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:27:56 +0100
> Fellow Chickeneers,
>
> when investigating the problem described in ticket #450, Christian and I
> had a discussion about whether it makes sense to be able to i
Felix writes:
> Being able to import a module without requiring the loading of the
> libary is necessary to allow cross-compilation. Chicken separates this
> and I consider it a feature.
Right, Christian pointed this out, too. I wonder though: Are modules
which use `require-extension' cross-com
