On 10/3/05, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/3/05, Raffael Cavallaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Using the latest 2.2 release, with (or without) the hash patch, if I > > compile the simple-macros egg and try to use it and, for example the > > posix extension, I get odd errors: > > > > #;1> (require-extension simple-macros) > > #;2> (use posix) > > Try; > > (require-module posix-module) > (import posix)
You know, Felix -- it would be great to have a single, well-written, side-by-side comparison of '(use require-extension require-module import load ...) somewhere. I respect that there must be valid reasons for having all of these directives. Though the application developer in me cries out "just give me one directive that Does The Right Thing in any context!", I'm willing to pat the AD-in-me on the head and console him if there's a good rationale for maintaining this rather large suite of inclusion/linkage directives. In your copious free time, perhaps? Or could another Chickenista prepare such a guide for the hungry masses? (As an aside, I think there's an interesting parallel between this issue and the alternate-build-tools discussion that's currently on the list. They're both about expressing relationships between code units, and providing necessary cues to build-tools to bring those units together. Although tight couplings are generally bad form, it would be very nice to see a build-tool that was better integrated with Chicken, and "spoke the same language" as the '(require import load) suite. (Sorry, this is a fuzzy thought from a high-level user, but perhaps there's a kernel of value in there for the Chicken-hackers in the crowd?)) Graham _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users