On Aug 25, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>
> I agree that it's basically the same when done right, which is why I
> initially suggested the simpler solution. I think the one benefit of
> these "export sets" is that they make it a language abstraction
> rather than a convention of where to put files.
IMO, t
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> On Aug 25, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> > On Aug 24, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>> >> There is not now but we could make a module that only exported them
>> >> so you could provide all-from-out it a
On Aug 25, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > On Aug 24, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> >> There is not now but we could make a module that only exported them
> >> so you could provide all-from-out it and thus centralize the list of
> >> subforms. That's the cle
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> That's not my bad idea, which might not be so bad actually. I'm
> imagine a new require/provide transformer that names sets of exports:
And then it only a hop, skip, and jump to expansion-time units. Which
would actually make me happy when I'
Actually, I grepped through the source in the hope that that's
precisely what I would find. It's when I didn't that I wrote the
list.
Shriram
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> On Aug 24, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>>> Ther
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> On Aug 24, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>> There is not now but we could make a module that only exported them
>> so you could provide all-from-out it and thus centralize the list of
>> subforms. That's the cleanest idea I have.
>
> This assumes you w
On Aug 24, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> There is not now but we could make a module that only exported them
> so you could provide all-from-out it and thus centralize the list of
> subforms. That's the cleanest idea I have.
This assumes you want only the core ones, and not things that are
defined in othe
This seems like it would be a good way to handle all the constructs
that have sub-forms-as-standalone-macros (require, provide, big-bang,
match?, etc). Maybe there are other good ways, too, but the current
setup is a nuisance AND highly non-modular.
Shriram
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Jay
There is not now but we could make a module that only exported them so you
could provide all-from-out it and thus centralize the list of subforms. That's
the cleanest idea I have. (You don't want to hear my really bad ideas)
Jay
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 24, 2010, at 8:46 PM, Shriram Krishnam
Is there a way to say "give me all the require sub-forms" instead of
having to enumerate them explicitly:
(provide require only-in except-in prefix-in rename-in combine-in
only-meta-in for-syntax for-template for-label for-meta)
thereby missing some in future extensions of the base language?
10 matches
Mail list logo
