Re: [Chicken-hackers] [C5] `extension' components & non-modules

2017-05-31 Thread Evan Hanson
On 2017-05-31 12:19, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > Ok, how about a new .egg extension property named "(modules NAME1 ...)"? > Defaulting to one module (the extension name). Keeping the list empty > ("(modules)") specifies an extension without modules. I like this idea, flexible but with a s

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [C5] `extension' components & non-modules

2017-05-31 Thread Mario Domenech Goulart
Hello, On Wed, 31 May 2017 11:34:19 +0200 felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: >> Should extension components specified in .egg files be required to be >> modules? >> >> If I understand correctly, that's the case at the moment, as the build >> script will try to compile .import.scm files supposedl

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [C5] `extension' components & non-modules

2017-05-31 Thread Mario Domenech Goulart
Hello, On Wed, 31 May 2017 12:19:07 +0200 felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > Ok, how about a new .egg extension property named "(modules NAME1 ...)"? > Defaulting to one module (the extension name). Keeping the list empty > ("(modules)") specifies an extension without modules. Sounds very good

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [C5] `extension' components & non-modules

2017-05-31 Thread Peter Bex
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:19:07PM +0200, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > > > The multi-module case is indeed not covered. There is an note on the > > > wiki regarding functors that emit 2 import libs (used in some places), > > > this has to be handled automatically (compile + install .import.

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [C5] `extension' components & non-modules

2017-05-31 Thread felix . winkelmann
> > The multi-module case is indeed not covered. There is an note on the > > wiki regarding functors that emit 2 import libs (used in some places), > > this has to be handled automatically (compile + install .import.so > > and _.import.so, if the latter one exists). Another option would be > > to a

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [C5] `extension' components & non-modules

2017-05-31 Thread Peter Bex
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:34:19AM +0200, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > All good questions. I'm for making this as simple as possible. The overhead > for having a module for each extension shouldn't be too much and there > appears to me (at least at this stage) no disxadvantage of requiring

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [C5] `extension' components & non-modules

2017-05-31 Thread felix . winkelmann
> Should extension components specified in .egg files be required to be > modules? > > If I understand correctly, that's the case at the moment, as the build > script will try to compile .import.scm files supposedly emited for files > specified as extensions (they might not exist if the files don'