Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix record type tags to be nonglobal by module-prefixing them

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Evan Hanson wrote: I really think we should hide the hash prefixing as much as possible. > It's an implementation detail and not something users should interact > with directly. The right way to distinguish these things is through the > module

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix record type tags to be nonglobal by module-prefixing them

On 2017-07-18 8:30, Peter Bex wrote: On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:55:21AM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote: Regarding whether to namespace the core record types, I think we probably _should_ do so, but it's not a priority. My attitude towards wrapping the tags in a record type is similar; I'd be fine

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix record type tags to be nonglobal by module-prefixing them

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:55:21AM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote: > Thanks Peter, I've applied this as it is. I agree with Lemon that we > should dry up the repeated naming logic, but for now I think we can live > with the duplication in order to keep things moving. > > The patch wasn't quite careful

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix record type tags to be nonglobal by module-prefixing them

Thanks Peter, I've applied this as it is. I agree with Lemon that we should dry up the repeated naming logic, but for now I think we can live with the duplication in order to keep things moving. The patch wasn't quite careful enough with regards to bootstrapping, however, and caused some

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix record type tags to be nonglobal by module-prefixing them

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:

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix record type tags to be nonglobal by module-prefixing them

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

[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix record type tags to be nonglobal by module-prefixing them

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). This was reverted later on because it turned out to be somewhat incompatible with various things, like the record-variants egg. I think this