[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Make the "-module" option take the modu

From: Peter Bex
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Make the "-module" option take the module name as an argument
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:06:33 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 10:32:07PM +1300, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Hi all,
> Here's an opinion patch. :)
> I'd like to be able to specify a module name on the command line, in the
> same way that one can specify "-unit foo".
> There's some other cleanup in the patch, too, including a fix for a
> segfault when chicken(1) is given an invalid command line. Let me know
> what you think.

Hm, I'm on the fence about this one.

On one hand, I don't really like the fact that we're renaming the
existing option.  We could just drop support for the implicit
"main" or keep the old name and use a different name for the new one.

Having "-module main" requires no extra typing (it's a space instead
of a dash), and -M eats up an important extra letter.

On the other hand, -m (or -M) is nice and short.

This is a bit of a niche option, isn't it?  I don't really see the use
of it: nothing gets exported anyway, so why should the name of the
module matter?  Besides, wrapping something in a module isn't really
that useful, except maybe to catch errors.

I'd like to hear the opinion of other hackers about this one.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]