From: John Cowan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] library unit restructuring Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 13:13:22 -0400
> Felix Winkelmann scripsit: > >> Ah, very good. A nice list. I like the simple generic names "string", >> "list". It would be nice to have some hierarchical naming for core >> modules, what do you think about "chicken.string", "chicken.list" >> etc. (even though I prefer the plural form, that is, "strings")? > > +1 on all these points. I too prefer the plural, but the R7RS WG voted > for the singular. Ok, good to know. > >> There is some ambiguity with that, when import-modifiers come into >> play... > > The R7RS-small committee thought about that, and decided that people > who name their modules (only this) or (except that) deserve to lose. > In short, the import-modifiers are much more important than the ability > to use four particular words in library names. I think we talked about this before. I have to check whether there are any syntactic cases where list-syntax for module names would collide with existing use of module names (functors, implicit import-modifiers in "use", etc.) Originally, I was somewhat sceptical about allowing this, but since R7RS has it and since it looks less offensive than using "chicken.whatever", we might as well just go for it. felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
