Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133

[John Cowan]

Oleg Kolosov scripsit:

> What do you think about Chibi Scheme approach
> (http://synthcode.com/scheme/chibi/#h2_ModuleSystem)? Providing module
> definitions separately, avoids aforementioned issues nicely, and,
> coupled with an option to ignore everything as proposed above will allow
> incremental migration. Also, having compatible (and standard compliant)
> module system is a huge selling point IMO.

Hey, I'm all for that (no surprise).

When I develop code for a SRFI, I provide one or more implementation
files, usually named foo-impl.scm, and then an R7RS/Chibi module named
foo.sld and a Chicken version named foo.scm.  These files contain just
imports for R7RS or uses for Chicken, exports, and includes.  So far I
haven't felt the need for separate compilation of the components of a
a single module.

IMO (and I know Felix is opposed to this, though I can't say I understand
why), it would be better if the semantics of Chicken `import` fell back
to `use` if the module is not currently loaded, rather than throwing
an error.  If that worked, it would be possible to simulate a substantial
subset of R7RS module language as native Chicken code.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        address@hidden
As you read this, I don't want you to feel sorry for me, because,
I believe everyone will die someday.
               --From a Nigerian-type scam spam