Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:01:30AM +0200, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > > First, let me ramble some: > > > > 1. If you hide an exported identifier the compiler is free to drop the > > actual definition from the compiled object. This happens without any > > warnings currently and you get a

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376

> First, let me ramble some: > > 1. If you hide an exported identifier the compiler is free to drop the > actual definition from the compiled object. This happens without any > warnings currently and you get a runtime error if you try to use the > identifier. > > 2. If an identifier is not

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376

felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com writes: > > Hi! > > > Sorry, I'm rather late to this discussion, and I apologize for that. But > note that > the whole idea to extend the hide declaration for unexporting from modules is > bogus. Declarations work at a completely different level, and aren't even >

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376

> > Evan Hanson writes: > > >> Which foo should be hidden? Both, or none? > > > > Personally, I'd expect the following behaviour, depending on where the > > declaration appears: > > > > I did some tests with and without the POC patch I sent yesterday. > > Some

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376

Evan Hanson writes: >> Which foo should be hidden? Both, or none? > > Personally, I'd expect the following behaviour, depending on where the > declaration appears: > I did some tests with and without the POC patch I sent yesterday. Some observations: (these are the only

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376

Hey all, On 2017-06-05 11:43, Peter Bex wrote: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 06:09:54PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote: > > Is that right? Personally, I'd rather make (declare (hide ...)) simply > > do the right thing -- the right thing being the behaviour you originally > > expected when filing #1376 --

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376

Evan Hanson writes: > If I understand correctly, this would effectively be an "unexport" of > sorts, like so: Yes, that's what I was thinking. > > Is that right? Personally, I'd rather make (declare (hide ...)) simply > do the right thing -- the right thing being the

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 06:09:54PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote: > Is that right? Personally, I'd rather make (declare (hide ...)) simply > do the right thing -- the right thing being the behaviour you originally > expected when filing #1376 -- than add a new type of declaration or > module syntax. >

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376

Hi megane, On 2017-05-28 16:12, megane wrote: > I was thinking maybe we could leave the declarations as they are and add > an explicit counterpart for export. The implementation may be pretty > easy to do by just updating the module export and what not lists. Maybe > call the new syntax

[Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376

Hi, I was thinking maybe we could leave the declarations as they are and add an explicit counterpart for export. The implementation may be pretty easy to do by just updating the module export and what not lists. Maybe call the new syntax hide-export. I could try creating a patch if this sounds