[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (define-module (foo) #:import (...)), a la r6rs
From: |
Andy Wingo |
Subject: |
Re: (define-module (foo) #:import (...)), a la r6rs |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:08:47 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
Procrastinating :)
On Thu 28 Jul 2011 23:23, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> So what do you all think about:
>>
>> (define-module (foo)
>> #:import ((bar)
>> (only (baz) qux foo)
>> ...))
>>
>> Or even:
>>
>> (define-module (foo)
>> (import (bar)
>> (only (baz) qux foo)
>> ...))
>
> I’d prefer #:use-modules (plural), for consistency:
>
> (define-module (foo)
> #:use-modules ((bar)
> (baz) #:select (qux foo)
> (chbouib) #:renamer (symbol-prefix-proc 'p)))
>
> What do you think?
I don't like the paren placement so much. Consistency is important, but
TBH I think that we should phase out the "use-module" / "use-modules"
terminology, in favor of "import" terminology of r6rs and the coming
r7rs.
What do you think about that? :-)
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
- Re: (define-module (foo) #:import (...)), a la r6rs,
Andy Wingo <=