Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Turn chicken.condition into a module, with syntax exports!

[Evan Hanson]

On 2017-05-19 11:20, Peter Bex wrote:
> I actually prefer using that hack of "internal" modules.  Modules are a
> standard approach that users will already be familiar with, which means
> the barrier to entry should be slightly lower.  And, also important, with
> modules you get an error when you try to refer to a procedure that isn't
> exported.  So, if we remove a procedure for example, we will immediately
> know when we forgot to remove a call site.

Hmmmm, this is true. I'm just a bit concerned about making things overly
complicated within core. And, it isn't nice to make users deal with
extra files just because it makes our own lives more convenient (for
example when distributing a program as C files, where they now have to
worry about an internal.c as well as runtime.c, library.c, and so on).
But maybe it won't be a problem if we're considerate about it.

> Besides, AFAIK non-exported module identifiers will be hidden by the
> compiler, so we'd have to add another hack to prevent that.

Actually, explicitly-namespaced identifiers, like qualified symbols, are
not hidden, so that's no problem.

Cheers,

Evan

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature