Re: [Chicken-hackers] -block: a solution leading to more questions

[Jörg F . Wittenberger]

On Apr 11 2013, Christian Kellermann wrote:

> * Jörg F. Wittenberger <address@hidden> [130411 18:36]:
> > To sum up: I feel this would be a task to be performed inside
> > the compiler and not by some precompile script.
> >
> >
> > Feasible? Rational?  How do you guys thing ot it.
> >
> > Find attached the modified code of yesterdays foobar example,
> > which does work.  (Including a Makefile ;-)
>
> Are you aware of the "filename" form of the module construct?
>
> You can have your portable code in the file as it is, then build a
> module file which loads your implementation and you can specify
> which identifiers should be visible to the outside world. That
> sounds a lot easier to me than what you are currently doing.
>
> For example:
>
> File foo.scm:
> (module foo (procedure1 procedure2) "foo-impl.scm")

No, that is yes: I've not been aware of this for.

I'm using (module foo (<exports>) (include "foo.imple.scm")
almost everywhere, however.

> foo-impl.scm contains your original code. Or does this miss an
> important point here?


Maybe: what I'm doing there is (or that is seems to be - to me)
only needed when one tries to use (block) optimization.
So what I'm doing is only to manage "export via backdoor".

I noticed however, that it have the nice side effect of
better insulation.  When I change the implementation, I
might need/want to change the import list, which would
trigger a recompile of depending modules.  That's not the
case with the binding construct.

Kind regards,

/Jörg



.......