On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 03:48:54PM +0200, lemonboy wrote: > On 14 Jul, Peter Bex wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > A long time ago, we had a patch that tried to prefix the current module > > name onto a record type's tag (727b2b3fea271474540f215af4842d32e82e7e6d). > > > Awesome news! > > A minor nit: the whole module-prefixing dance is repeated three times in this > patch alone, I think it'd be better to reuse the existing but hidden > module-rename: an helper function module-rename/mod that takes a symbol name > and > a module (remember that module-name isn't exported) would clear the code a bit > and I'd also need that for another patch :)
I agree that would be cleaner, but I didn't want to make this patch dependent on a huge other huge change regarding the "chicken.module" module. > > There are two remaining questions: > > - Should the core record types like "promise", "thread" and so on be > > tagged with a module prefix? I think it's fine to keep them the > > way they are. > Why not? If having clear and separate namespaces is the end goal I don't see > why > the core should be exempt (besides the fact that the types.db diff is going to > be huge!) Not everything has been namespaced yet, and some objects are created in various places so might not have a single "home". Also, it's a lot of work to do, which we can always do later in 5.1. Remember, we want 5.0 to be finished this century ;) Cheers, Peter
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
