Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] [5] Make syntax-rules "fully" self-contained

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:19:24PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > Hi all, > > Here's a reasonably simple patch that moves the expansion-time support > helpers for ye olde syntax-rules into an internal module in synrules.scm. Well, not simple enough I guess ;). I decided at the last minute to rename

[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] [5] Make syntax-rules "fully" self-contained

Hi all, Here's a reasonably simple patch that moves the expansion-time support helpers for ye olde syntax-rules into an internal module in synrules.scm. process-syntax-rules is also stripped from its ##sys# prefix, since that's no longer required with the new support for fully qualified symbols.

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Peter Bex wrote: Unexport seems to me to be solving a non-problem. > As we discussed on IRC, I see unexport as mitigating the problems with (export *), and it's better to drop exporting * instead. "Whitelisting is better than blacklisting."

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 11:24:44AM +0300, megane wrote: > > Reexport is nice if you have a big module (say a graphics library) you > > want to organize into smaller chunks internally. > > Yeah, but why can't "export" (or the export list) do that job? Because you have to import first. IIRC,

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:06 PM, wrote: > > Isn't it easy to forget particular identifiers that happen to start with > > "fp" > > as well? I think explicit "rename" imports are clearer and less error > > prone. > > > > My example is bad: you'd want to use it with a

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

Peter Bex writes: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 11:24:44AM +0300, megane wrote: >> Reexport is nice if you have a big module (say a graphics library) you >> want to organize into smaller chunks internally. > > Yeah, but why can't "export" (or the export list) do that job?

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 11:24:44AM +0300, megane wrote: > Reexport is nice if you have a big module (say a graphics library) you > want to organize into smaller chunks internally. Yeah, but why can't "export" (or the export list) do that job? Cheers, Peter signature.asc Description: Digital

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

Peter Bex writes: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 11:19:05AM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote: [...] >> I like export, personally (in fact, I'd rather do away with the module >> list, but that's neither here nor there), but I do think it's odd that >> it lives in "chicken" while

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

Peter Bex writes: > Unexport seems to me to be solving a non-problem. Exporting * always > seemed questionable to me, since it is too implicit and very error-prone. > It's very rare that you don't introduce *any* helper procedures or > macros. In fact, introducing

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 11:19:05AM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Firstly, thank you for the writeup. It takes time and energy to consider > design issues like this, and your effort is appreciated. No prob. I really wanted to preempt adding more features without considering the