Hello! "Jose A. Ortega Ruiz" <j...@gnu.org> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 01 2010, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> "Jose A. Ortega Ruiz" <j...@gnu.org> writes: >> >>> (I'm still curious about the meaning of the >>> modules with gensyms as names, though.) >> >> psyntax expects modules to have a name so that it can refer to them in >> expanded code. Thus, there can be no anonymous modules: modules are >> always given a name, see ‘module-name’. This allows things like the >> “compile in fresh module” test to work. > > I see. But then, aren't those modules something internal to psyntax's > workings? No, they’re not internal. They’re just (pseudo-)anonymous modules that ended up in the module hierarchy, like any other module. Evaluate (module-name (make-module)) and you’ve added another one. :-) > And if so, shouldn't they be filtered out from the return value of > module-submodules (or not be traversed by the apropos-fold)? As a user > of those procedures, i find the appearance of those modules a bit > confusing (the only use case in client code i can think of is when > using the return value of current-module). Am i missing something? I agree that as users we’d rather not see these modules, especially from Geiser. But they have to be there. So, unless I’m missing an elegant design trick to avoid this, I think you’re bound to use heuristics to filter them out (e.g., get rid of modules whose name contains white spaces.) Thanks, Ludo’.