It is unwise to rely on the (implicit) ordering of modules. When you just have the simple setup you suggest below, that all seems reasonable, but do the "only instantiate once" behavior of module requires, some other module might come along and require module-sequence2.ss from some faraway place and break things.
Better to just put your initialization code into thunks and then have a main thunk somewhere that calls all of the initialization code in the right order. Robby On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Jos Koot <jos.k...@telefonica.net> wrote: > It appears that modules are not run in the same order as they are required. > This can give trouble when modules have side effects, for instance one > module writing a file and the other one reading that file. As an example: > > File module-sequence1.ss > #lang scheme > (printf "module 1~n") > > File module-sequence2.ss > #lang scheme > (printf "module 2~n") > > File module-sequence12.ss > #lang scheme > (require "module-sequence1.ss") > (require "module-sequence2.ss") > ;Displays: > ;module 2 > ;module 1 > > Is it possible to run modules in the order they are required? > (may be by inserting 'inverse' somewhere in #%module-begin?) > Jos > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
