On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 01:18:14PM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote: > On Mon Oct 20, 2025 at 9:58 PM CEST, Diogo wrote: > > > > I will try this. By intended style, you mean crunching small pieces of > > code in a larger chicken program/module? > > This is the way I considered, but you're use is not wrong as such, > I just didn't test that way of usage well enough, it turns out. > Both approaches should work, of course. > > > > Alternatively, I could split the modules in implementation (.scm) > > and module definition (.sld) and include the former in the latter. > > Then in the chicken tests, I could (crunch (include "former.scm")). > > Not sure if that would help though. What would be your recommendation? > > It's certainly one way to approach it. In the end it depends on what > is most convenient to you. I will investigate the problem you reported > in any case, I'm just a bit busy in the moment, so it may take some > time. Thanks for the heads up. Please, don't worry with this at the moment. I won't be able to work much on this pet project until December break, anyway :)
Cheers, -Diogo
