Hello, On Wed, 31 May 2017 11:34:19 +0200 felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
>> Should extension components specified in .egg files be required to be >> modules? >> >> If I understand correctly, that's the case at the moment, as the build >> script will try to compile .import.scm files supposedly emited for files >> specified as extensions (they might not exist if the files don't declare >> a module). >> >> Should we allow non-modules to be specified as extension components? >> >> What about files that declare multiple modules? > > 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? I sometimes resort to the case of "moduleless" extensions when I need to load code in runtime, and want the loaded files to be able to use symbols from the loader (e.g., configuration files with Scheme code). All the best. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
