On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 10:32:07PM +1300, Evan Hanson wrote: > Hi all, > > Here's an opinion patch. :) > > I'd like to be able to specify a module name on the command line, in the > same way that one can specify "-unit foo". > > There's some other cleanup in the patch, too, including a fix for a > segfault when chicken(1) is given an invalid command line. Let me know > what you think.
Hm, I'm on the fence about this one. On one hand, I don't really like the fact that we're renaming the existing option. We could just drop support for the implicit "main" or keep the old name and use a different name for the new one. Having "-module main" requires no extra typing (it's a space instead of a dash), and -M eats up an important extra letter. On the other hand, -m (or -M) is nice and short. This is a bit of a niche option, isn't it? I don't really see the use of it: nothing gets exported anyway, so why should the name of the module matter? Besides, wrapping something in a module isn't really that useful, except maybe to catch errors. I'd like to hear the opinion of other hackers about this one. Cheers, Peter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
