On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 01:10:03PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote: > I think before we strip many more qualified symbols we should come up > with an idea of how to handle their replacements. With that "escape > hatch" change, we can now do basically whatever we want, and we can even > (for example) get rid of the "internal" module (always a bit of a hack, > and one that I'd like to see go away...), in favor of direct assignments > to whatever namespace we decide to use.
I actually prefer using that hack of "internal" modules. Modules are a standard approach that users will already be familiar with, which means the barrier to entry should be slightly lower. And, also important, with modules you get an error when you try to refer to a procedure that isn't exported. So, if we remove a procedure for example, we will immediately know when we forgot to remove a call site. Besides, AFAIK non-exported module identifiers will be hidden by the compiler, so we'd have to add another hack to prevent that. > On 2017-05-07 21:47, Peter Bex wrote: > > PS: before you run "make check", you'll need to install and recompile > > with the new compiler (or just go through a chicken-boot process), > > there are some issues with the static linking tests otherwise. > > It was actually possible to compile this with the 5.0.0pre1 snapshot > directly, sans boot-chicken. I think any static linking test failures > you saw are probably related to #1366 and not the version used to > bootstrap. Oh right, I forgot about that one. Cheers, Peter
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chickenemail@example.com https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers