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

[felix . winkelmann]

>
> Evan Hanson <address@hidden> writes:
>
> >> Which foo should be hidden?  Both, or none?
> >
> > Personally, I'd expect the following behaviour, depending on where the
> > declaration appears:
> >
>
> I did some tests with and without the POC patch I sent yesterday.
>
> Some observations:
> (these are the only variables with differing behaviour, see the
> attached diff)
>
> - foo1, bar1, foo2, bar2 are now hidden correctly
> - foo7, bar7, foo8, bar8 are now hidden incorrectly. This should be easy
> to fix by changing the visibility value of the identifier in the export macro.
>
>

Hi!


Sorry, I'm  rather late to this discussion, and I apologize for that. But note 
that
the whole idea to extend the hide declaration for unexporting from modules is
bogus. Declarations work at a completely different level, and aren't even aware
of syntax-bindings, IIRC. If you want to make a module-level identifier not 
visible,
then just remove it from the export list. If you are forced to use "*", then a 
special
form (like "unexport") would be better. Declarations are not the right place for
this.


felix