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

[Kon Lovett]

On Sep 1, 2009, at 12:57 AM, felix winkelmann wrote:

> Hello!
>
>
> It's probably just me, but if I have to write "(use ports files
> data-structures utils extras)" one more
> time, I'll go crazy.
>
> 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. I think it's ok to keep the SRFIs separate.

Personally I would like to go further in splitting files (Unit library  
itself is kinda unwieldy), creating units like 'pathname' and  
'system'. (Already mentioned by John Cowan as I was babbling.)

> 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.
> Nothing else
> will be changed, with the exception of the manual. We can provide a  
> placeholder
> extension for pre 4.1.6 chickens (just like Mario did for the  
> "files" unit).
>
> Is it ok to make this change, or does somebody see a problem with  
> this?

The creation of a "compound module" for a convenient Chicken Utility  
Library to head-off a dive into insanity seems necessary.

I do want to endorse the suggestion by Alex for an '(extend  
MODULE ...)' form; I build these manually. Would a consumer need to  
'require-library' to get the binary of the extended module or just  
require the extending module or both? Should extending a subset of a  
module and/or renaming/prefixing the identifiers be supported?

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

Hum, John's "roaster" is cute.

> _______________________________________________
> Chicken-hackers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers

Best Wishes,
Kon