Re: [Chicken-hackers] [Chicken-users] Some questions about CHICKEN 5 eggs and modules

[Thomas Chust]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:17:08 +0200 address@hidden wrote:

> > [...]
> > I can't say that I like this design decision, but I guess I'll have to
> > live with it. If this is unsupported, it also feels strange that
> > the .egg format allows specification of multiple import libraries per
> > extension at all – the provider side of the picture, when you write a
> > library with multiple modules, is supported, but the consumer side,
> > when you try to use it, is suddenly not supported any longer.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean, some example would be helpful here.
> [...]

Hello Felix,

hmm, I was under the impression that we could now declare multiple
(modules ...) in an (extension ...) but there was no way to access them
because (import ...) would always try to load both the import library
and the extension of the same name.

However, I just realized that my old default approach of doing
(require-library ...) first and (import ...) later still seems to work
fine. Only when commpiling such code, CHICKEN will always complain that
the extensions with the same names as the modules do not exist, but
that's a minor nuisance.

So never mind that stupid question ;-)

Ciao,
Thomas


-- 
There are only two things wrong with C++: The initial concept and the
implementation.
-- Bertrand Meyer