chicken-hackers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?


From: John Cowan
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:20:41 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

felix winkelmann scripsit:

> I think the splitting up of the extras unit was done haphazardly. It
> doesn't really give any benefit to split up the library fo chicken
> extensions, since loading one or two eggs will drag in most of them
> anyway.

True, but it is helpful for stand-alone applications that don't want
to carry around unnecessary cruft.  It's true that you can copy the
source code out of the unit to do this, but that's a gross violation
of encapsulation.

> Therefore I'd like to introduce a new library unit (say "chicken-stuff"
> [*]) that for the time being just loads the other units and provides
> the necessary imports.

Sounds good to me.

> Is it ok to make this change, or does somebody see a problem with this?

While we're at it, how about finishing the job with "extras"?  It now has
three parts which have little connection.  If we break it up into units
"format", "random", and "ioext", that should help application writers
who want to use just one of these.  (Of course, "extras" would still be
supported as a compound unit for backward compatibility.)

That gives selectivity for those who want it, and convenience for those
who want it.  And at some point we can tidy up eggs that use units they
don't actually need.

> [*] a lame name - any suggestions are welcome

How about "roaster" (a U.S. term for a large chicken suitable for
roasting, typically over 2 kg)?


-- 
Samuel Johnson on playing the violin:           John Cowan
"Difficult do you call it, Sir?                 address@hidden
 I wish it were impossible."                    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]