Re: [Chicken-hackers] importing modules of not yet loaded extensions

[Felix]

From: Moritz Heidkamp <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] importing modules of not yet loaded extensions
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 02:08:49 +0100

> Felix <address@hidden> writes:
>> Being able to import a module without requiring the loading of the 
>> libary is necessary to allow cross-compilation. Chicken separates this
>> and I consider it a feature. 
> 
> Right, Christian pointed this out, too. I wonder though: Are modules
> which use `require-extension' cross-compilable then at all? Or does the
> compiler somehow prevent the actual loading from taking place,
> effectively replacing them by just an `import'? If that is indeed the
> case, why not make `import' behave like `require-extension' in the first
> place? Or am I missing something obvious?
> 

Well, actually, I lied. For normal cross-compilation setup, you have
both the import-lib and the runtime-lib separately for each architecture,
but if you do so manually, this becomes important.

But the situation is generally that it may be the case that you want
to compile a file, even if the runtime-part might possibly not work.
Why should the compiler load a huge graphics library just to compile
a module that happens to import its interface?

I like the separation and I like the fact that it's under user
control and not magically done behind the scenes (there is already
too much magic going on in extension-loading). The compiler does
for example avoid the loading of the runtime-part at runtime, if
the extension has the `(import-only)' property. Horrible, but 
you need that for syntax-only extensions.


cheers,
felix