Peter Bex <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 11:19:05AM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote: [...] >> I like export, personally (in fact, I'd rather do away with the module >> list, but that's neither here nor there), but I do think it's odd that >> it lives in "chicken" while reexport is in the initial environment. They >> should either be swapped or moved so that they're both outside the >> default namespace. >> >> (Personally, I think reexport is the strange one here, but that's >> another topic for another day...) > > Yeah, reexport is obscure. Why do we need it again? And to me, export > only makes sense if the module form doesn't have an export list. > Combining the two is just weird.
Reexport is nice if you have a big module (say a graphics library) you want to organize into smaller chunks internally. So compile it module by module and hand the main module for the users to import. I can't think of other way to make this sane than some kind of reexport functionality. I think there are however some bugs/missing features with the reexport currently. The inlines and type definitions are not carried over the reexport currently. Have to investigate this some more. _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
