Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add initial version of (chicken base)

[felix . winkelmann]

> > It has uses - "notice" is different, and can be replaced by a (trivially)
> > implemented user-made logging facility. This may sound a bit like 
> > bikeshedding,
> > but we will break a bit of code otherwise.
>
> Note that the second patch I supplied doesn't remove "notice" or "warning",
> it merely keeps them at the toplevel in library.scm, so we can later decide
> what to do with it.

Ah, ok, I'm not myself recently...

> > > require-library is so weird and does so much (at least, it looks like it
> > > does from the docs), I don't know what to do with it.  Maybe we can indeed
> > > just remove it?
> >
> > It should be possible to link with units, but I guess that can be done via 
> > "declare".
> > If that is still possible then "require-library" may indeed go.
>
> Yeah, I think that's still possible.

What it does is allowing runtime-linking to a compiled unit that is compiled
into a library (not a loadable .so). The expansion (using '##core#require')
is a bit too involved for user code. We should investigate and compare
the remaining loading/linking forms and make every possible case is handled:
loadable .so (module), static library, dynamically loadable library (also a .so,
confusingly), source code, etc.


felix