Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376

[megane]

Evan Hanson <address@hidden> writes:

> If I understand correctly, this would effectively be an "unexport" of
> sorts, like so:

Yes, that's what I was thinking.
>
> 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.

Here's a quick POC doing this.

It filters out all identifiers marked 'hidden from the syntax-exports
and variable exports lists in ##sys#finalize-module.

It doesn't touch the indirect exports list. I'm not sure how that should
be handled.

Applies to the 4.12.0 tarball.

If you think this is a valid approach I can clean it up and add some tests.

drop-hidden-module-exports.patch
Description: Text Data