On 2017-05-19 11:20, Peter Bex wrote:
> I actually prefer using that hack of "internal" modules. Modules are a
> standard approach that users will already be familiar with, which means
> the barrier to entry should be slightly lower. And, also important, with
> modules you get an error when you
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 01:10:03PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> I think before we strip many more qualified symbols we should come up
> with an idea of how to handle their replacements. With that "escape
> hatch" change, we can now do basically whatever we want, and we can even
> (for example) get
Hi Peter,
On 2017-05-07 21:45, Peter Bex wrote:
> The core-library-reorganization page has "(chicken condition)" under
> "undecided", but I think it's fine the way it is. The attached patches
> add this module.
These have been applied. Excellent work, it looks like these were tricky
changes.
>
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 09:45:07PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The core-library-reorganization page has "(chicken condition)" under
> "undecided", but I think it's fine the way it is. The attached patches
> add this module.
PS: before you run "make check", you'll need to install and
Hi all,
The core-library-reorganization page has "(chicken condition)" under
"undecided", but I think it's fine the way it is. The attached patches
add this module.
The first patch is a straightforward change to wrap the relevant
procedure definitions in a module definition. I decided to also
