On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > At Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:05:52 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> However, I don't (yet) think it's the right solution. In particular, >> I feel like this moves away from the really great feature of >> submodules, which is that they behave basically exactly like regular >> modules. From what I can tell, the only place where this uniformity >> breaks down currently is with `(module* name #f ....)', where the >> outer module is `require`d *before* the inner module starts expanding. >> In other words, if we have: >> >> (module M L >> (module* N #f ...)) >> >> currently `M` is required *before* `N` begins expanding, which is >> unlike any other module relationship that can be expressed in Racket >> (I think). > > How does it differ from > > (module M L ....) > (module N M ....)
You're totally right. Good thing I added that "(I think)" qualifier. :) However, I think of the submodule case as more like: (module M L ....) (module N L (require M) ....) except with the ability to see more of `M` than `require` normally exposes. Thinking further about your example, I think that it would also break the conditional environment updates that I'm thinking of. I think that means that I need to go back to the drawing board and think about the requirements here. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
