At Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:05:52 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > However, I don't (yet) think it's the right solution. In particular, > I feel like this moves away from the really great feature of > submodules, which is that they behave basically exactly like regular > modules. From what I can tell, the only place where this uniformity > breaks down currently is with `(module* name #f ....)', where the > outer module is `require`d *before* the inner module starts expanding. > In other words, if we have: > > (module M L > (module* N #f ...)) > > currently `M` is required *before* `N` begins expanding, which is > unlike any other module relationship that can be expressed in Racket > (I think).
How does it differ from (module M L ....) (module N M ....) ? _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
