Re: [Chicken-hackers] library unit restructuring

[Felix Winkelmann]

From: John Cowan <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] library unit restructuring
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 13:13:22 -0400

> Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
> 
>> Ah, very good. A nice list. I like the simple generic names "string",
>> "list". It would be nice to have some hierarchical naming for core
>> modules, what do you think about "chicken.string", "chicken.list"
>> etc. (even though I prefer the plural form, that is, "strings")? 
> 
> +1 on all these points.  I too prefer the plural, but the R7RS WG voted
> for the singular.

Ok, good to know.

> 
>> There is some ambiguity with that, when import-modifiers come into
>> play...
> 
> The R7RS-small committee thought about that, and decided that people
> who name their modules (only this) or (except that) deserve to lose.
> In short, the import-modifiers are much more important than the ability
> to use four particular words in library names.

I think we talked about this before. I have to check whether there are
any syntactic cases where list-syntax for module names would collide
with existing use of module names (functors, implicit import-modifiers
in "use", etc.) Originally, I was somewhat sceptical about allowing
this, but since R7RS has it and since it looks less offensive than
using "chicken.whatever", we might as well just go for it.


felix