Re: [Chicken-hackers] -block: a solution leading to more questions

[Christian Kellermann]

* Jörg F. Wittenberger <address@hidden> [130411 18:36]:
> To sum up: I feel this would be a task to be performed inside
> the compiler and not by some precompile script.
> 
> 
> Feasible? Rational?  How do you guys thing ot it.
> 
> Find attached the modified code of yesterdays foobar example,
> which does work.  (Including a Makefile ;-)

Are you aware of the "filename" form of the module construct?

You can have your portable code in the file as it is, then build a
module file which loads your implementation and you can specify
which identifiers should be visible to the outside world. That
sounds a lot easier to me than what you are currently doing.

For example:

File foo.scm:
(module foo (procedure1 procedure2) "foo-impl.scm")

foo-impl.scm contains your original code. Or does this miss an
important point here?

Kind regards,

Christian

-- 
In the world, there is nothing more submissive and weak than
water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong, nothing can
surpass it. --- Lao Tzu