From: Evan Hanson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] library unit restructuring Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 14:37:57 -0700
> On 2014-07-09 13:05, Felix Winkelmann wrote: >> 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")? In >> R7RS that would map to "(chicken string)" and so on. I can't remember >> whether we have considered "list"-syntax for module names yet. Should >> that be added? There is some ambiguity with that, when >> import-modifiers come into play... > > I don't think there's been any real discussion of it yet. I'm for it, at > least, and there shouldn't be any ambiguity disallowing "only" et al (as > described in the other fork of this thread). > I actually found one case: module alias definitions with listish module name can not be distinguished from functor instantiation: (module foo-alias = (chicken string)) Which is obscure enough. Should be drop module-aliases? They are used internally for functors, but are probably useless otherwise. > I like "chicken.string", "chicken.list", "chicken.ports", etc. It seems > like "chicken.string" might be a good one to start with as a proof of > concept, since it's fairly obvious what should be moved there from > data-structures (anything with "string" in its name, and possibly > "conc") and it'll probably only go one level under "chicken" (as in, > it'll consist of two parts, "chicken.string", and not more like, say, > "chicken.data.queue" (which is a bad example as it'll be eggified, but > still)). Right, sounds good to me. Regarding the eggification of binary-search, memory-mapped-files and queues - are we all agreeing about this? Does this require a change-request? felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
