[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376
From: |
Evan Hanson |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376 |
Date: |
Mon, 5 Jun 2017 18:09:54 +1200 |
Hi megane,
On 2017-05-28 16:12, megane wrote:
> I was thinking maybe we could leave the declarations as they are and add
> an explicit counterpart for export. The implementation may be pretty
> easy to do by just updating the module export and what not lists. Maybe
> call the new syntax hide-export.
If I understand correctly, this would effectively be an "unexport" of
sorts, like so:
(module m1 *
(import chicken scheme)
(define (foo) 1)
(define (bar) 2)
(unexport foo)) ; or (declare (hide-export ...))
(import m1)
(print (foo)) ; => 1
(print (bar)) ; => error, since bar was "unexported"
Is that right? Personally, I'd rather make (declare (hide ...)) simply
do the right thing -- the right thing being the behaviour you originally
expected when filing #1376 -- than add a new type of declaration or
module syntax.
I think this is similar to what Peter has said on that ticket, so a
patch of that sort would be very welcome.
Cheers,
Evan
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376,
Evan Hanson <=
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, Peter Bex, 2017/06/05
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, Evan Hanson, 2017/06/05
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, megane, 2017/06/06
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, felix . winkelmann, 2017/06/06
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, megane, 2017/06/06
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, felix . winkelmann, 2017/06/06
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, Peter Bex, 2017/06/06
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, megane, 2017/06/05