Oleg Kolosov scripsit: > What do you think about Chibi Scheme approach > (http://synthcode.com/scheme/chibi/#h2_ModuleSystem)? Providing module > definitions separately, avoids aforementioned issues nicely, and, > coupled with an option to ignore everything as proposed above will allow > incremental migration. Also, having compatible (and standard compliant) > module system is a huge selling point IMO.
Hey, I'm all for that (no surprise). When I develop code for a SRFI, I provide one or more implementation files, usually named foo-impl.scm, and then an R7RS/Chibi module named foo.sld and a Chicken version named foo.scm. These files contain just imports for R7RS or uses for Chicken, exports, and includes. So far I haven't felt the need for separate compilation of the components of a a single module. IMO (and I know Felix is opposed to this, though I can't say I understand why), it would be better if the semantics of Chicken `import` fell back to `use` if the module is not currently loaded, rather than throwing an error. If that worked, it would be possible to simulate a substantial subset of R7RS module language as native Chicken code. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] As you read this, I don't want you to feel sorry for me, because, I believe everyone will die someday. --From a Nigerian-type scam spam _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
