Thanks for the explanation! Laurent
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the ordering of submodules is unavoidable, but the > documentation should make more clear that the order of `module*` > declarations matters. > > Meanwhile, the documentation for `module+` needs to clarify that it > puts the generated `module*` at the end of the enclosing module, even > if there's only one `module+` form for a module name. It should also > say that the order of the generated `module*`s for multiple > `module+`-based modules corresponds to the order of the initial > `module+` for each name (which turns out to be an explicit choice, as > opposed to an accident of the implementation). > > At Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:16:06 +0200, Laurent wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm using `(module+ plot)` to avoid loading the `plot` library when > > requiring the enclosing module only. > > > > But it seems that `module+` is dependent on the order of the modules, > > somewhat contrarily to `module*`. For example, this works: > > #lang racket > > > > (define x 3) > > > > (module+ foo > > (provide y) > > (define y x)) > > > > (module+ test > > (require (submod ".." foo)) > > y) > > > > But this does not: > > #lang racket > > > > (define x 3) > > > > (module+ test) ; *** ADDED > > > > (module+ foo > > (provide y) > > (define y x)) > > > > (module+ test > > (require (submod ".." foo)) > > y) > > > > But this works: > > #lang racket > > > > (define x 3) > > > > (module+ test) > > > > (module* foo #f ; *** CHANGED > > (provide y) > > (define y x)) > > > > (module+ test > > (require (submod ".." foo)) > > y) > > > > And this works too: > > #lang racket > > > > (define x 3) > > > > (module+ foo) ; *** ADDED > > (module+ test) > > > > (module+ foo ; *** > > (provide y) > > (define y x)) > > > > (module+ test > > (require (submod ".." foo)) > > y) > > > > I want to use `module+` over `module*` for its concatenation capability, > > and adding a `(module+ foo)` at the top of my file is no big deal, but, > > since the docs do not talk about some order dependency of submodules > > (AFAICT) and only say that `module+` is equivalent to `module*` with #f > and > > concatenation, I was wondering if this was the intended behavior. > > > > Actually, `module*` also seems to be dependent of the order, as the > > following does not work: > > #lang racket > > > > (define x 3) > > > > (module* test #f > > (require (submod ".." foo)) > > y) > > > > (module* foo #f > > (provide y) > > (define y x)) > > > > From this I infer that the modules declared by `module+` are collected in > > order of their first appearance and declared at the end of the module in > > this same order, therefore after all `module*`. Is this correct? > > > > And is it easy enough to have order independence for both `module+` and > > `module*`, and would it be a good idea in general? > > > > Laurent > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
