Re: [Chicken-hackers] [C5] `extension' components & non-modules

[Mario Domenech Goulart]

Hello,

On Wed, 31 May 2017 11:34:19 +0200 address@hidden wrote:

>> Should extension components specified in .egg files be required to be
>> modules?
>> 
>> If I understand correctly, that's the case at the moment, as the build
>> script will try to compile .import.scm files supposedly emited for files
>> specified as extensions (they might not exist if the files don't declare
>> a module).
>> 
>> Should we allow non-modules to be specified as extension components?
>> 
>> What about files that declare multiple modules?
>
> All good questions. I'm for making this as simple as possible. The overhead
> for having a module for each extension shouldn't be too much and there
> appears to me (at least at this stage) no disxadvantage of requiring an 
> extension to be a module. Is there a particular use-case that would make
> the current approach problematic?

I sometimes resort to the case of "moduleless" extensions when I need to
load code in runtime, and want the loaded files to be able to use
symbols from the loader (e.g., configuration files with Scheme code).

All the best.
Mario
-- 
http://parenteses.org/mario