On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:34:19AM +0200, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > 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? > > The multi-module case is indeed not covered. There is an note on the > wiki regarding functors that emit 2 import libs (used in some places), > this has to be handled automatically (compile + install <module>.import.so > and <module>_.import.so, if the latter one exists). Another option would be > to add .egg properties specifying the output modules.
If I recall correctly, the s48-modules egg also generates two modules per package declaration: one that's "internal" with a leading underscore and one that's the actual module for public consumption. And of course CHICKEN itself also does this in several files. So there's some precedence of having a single source file that exports multiple modules. I think it's worth supporting. Cheers, Peter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers