Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Make the "-module" option take the module name as an argument

[Evan Hanson]

On 2015-10-30  8:18, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Yeah, I very nearly omitted the -main-module option, too. It's pretty
> silly and I'd be happy to see it go.

Attached is a patch doing this. I've also pushed these commits to the
"chicken-5-named-module-option" branch.

On 2015-10-30  8:18, Evan Hanson wrote:
> On 2015-10-29 20:06, Peter Bex wrote:
> > 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 also like to switch the default behaviour to export everything, but
> haven't gotten to testing that out yet. That way it's still useful as a
> "program wrapper" (since you won't be using those exports anyway), but
> also useful when compiling many different files together.

OK, so I think there are two valid options here and I'm not sure which
is better.

  1. Make the flag export everything as I suggested before. This works
     fine, it's easy to understand, but it's slightly less flexible than
     option 2:

  2. Keep the flag's behaviour as it is, exporting nothing, and let
     users (export ...) any identifiers they want to be exported when
     the file is compiled as a module. (This works well since export
     forms occurring outside of a module are simply ignored.)

I think I'm partial to #2. That way, the flag still works as a program
linter of sorts, but it's also generally useful as a way to control
compilation in multi-file projects.

Thoughts?

Evan

0001-Remove-the-somewhat-silly-main-module-option.patch
Description: Text Data