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

[John Cowan]

Kon Lovett scripsit:

> Personally I would like to go further in splitting files (Unit library  
> itself is kinda unwieldy), creating units like 'pathname' and  
> 'system'. 

I wasn't even going to touch that one yet, since everything in "library"
is included by default.  But in principle you are right.

> 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?

One problem is that every module must declare what it exports, which
creates bad coupling between the compound module and its components.
I'd rather see a simpler (compound-module newname . oldnames) that would
just allow combining modules rather than extending them.

-- 
Unless it was by accident that I had            John Cowan
offended someone, I never apologized.           address@hidden
        --Quentin Crisp                         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan