Daimrod <daim...@gmail.com> writes: > diogo...@gmail.com (Diogo F. S. Ramos) writes: > >> Max Mikhanosha <m...@openchat.com> writes: >> >>>> Unfortunately, by doing all this, I couldn't directly access a function >>>> called `bar', which is not exported by stumpwm, so I had to use `::'. It >>>> looks like a good symbol to export to me. >>> >>> stumpwm export list is IMHO stale, and its impossible to extend it >>> well without using internal symbols, so I see absolutely no problem with >>> that. >> >> Hum, that's unfortunate. >> >> I think that a nice set of exported symbols would be nice. Of course, >> it's much easier said than done. > > Maybe we could use the two packages #:stumpwm and #:stuwmpm-user by > exporting a small set of symbols in #:stumpwm-user required to use and > configure it and a larger set in #:stumpwm to develop modules with it. > > Currently, the #:stuwmpwm-user package doesn't contain any symbols and > is only used by two modules. > > Ofc to minimize the amount of change required we could simply add > another package like #:stumpwm-dev.
Well, as said earlier, I'm not a maintainer, but I don't see a reason to divide the symbols in different packages. It might create confusion by having to decide in which package a symbol should be exported and it's very likely that a "module" will have to use symbols exported by more than one package. I've been making more changes to pavol thanks to the great ideas of Scott and some bug reports and I didn't had to call stumpwm's internals more than the `bar' function. Granted, pavol doesn't have even a page of code, but still. -- Diogo F. S. Ramos _______________________________________________ Stumpwm-devel mailing list Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
