> > You know, Felix -- it would be great to have a single, well-written, > side-by-side comparison of '(use require-extension require-module > import load ...) somewhere. I respect that there must be valid reasons > for having all of these directives. Though the application developer > in me cries out "just give me one directive that Does The Right Thing > in any context!", I'm willing to pat the AD-in-me on the head and > console him if there's a good rationale for maintaining this rather > large suite of inclusion/linkage directives. >
Thomas has already given a good explanation of the differences of the loading forms, but let me add a few words here: - WE MUST HAVE STATIC LINKING - this means, the loading/linking of a (implementation) module has to be separated from the import of identifiers from (interface) modules - We have several syntactic module systems and they work slightly differently, even though the basic interface is quite similar. We definitely need some common syntax (common to both syntax-case and simple-macros) to handle the loading/linking, though. Suggestions are welcome. - simple-macros is still experimental. Andre will submit the module-part as a SRFI at some stage, so the syntax and semantics may still change. - I still think a module system should be optional for the base system. This makes it slightly awkward sometimes to load/link the relevant support code when using one of the module systems. I apologize if all those options make your head spin (I feel just the same), but this is all evolving yet. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
