Re: What's the status of modules and macros?

[Rob Browning]

Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:

> Yes, except that `(module-ref ...)' might not work since we would
> have to look up the symbol `module-ref'.  But where?  That's why I
> used `(#:module-ref ...)'.

Oh, right.  I guess I was presuming that we'd either just have
module-ref defined "globally" as a special case, or we'd have a pass
during the expansion process that would (in the interpreted case)
check the sexps looking for "(module-ref" and replacing it with the
appropriate cached binding.

Of course this is based on my novice and very loose idea of how things
work in the current interpreter, and when things happen.  (I just
noticed there are some docs about this stuff scattered around so I'm
going to go see if I can enlighten myself a bit more.)

At some point, if we don't already have one, it might be nice to make
a list of the steps taken by the current system, so we use it to
discuss what changes we may want.

Thanks

-- 
Rob Browning <address@hidden> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930