[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?
From: |
Kon Lovett |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules? |
Date: |
Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:39:26 -0700 |
On Sep 1, 2009, at 12:57 AM, felix winkelmann wrote:
Hello!
It's probably just me, but if I have to write "(use ports files
data-structures utils extras)" one more
time, I'll go crazy.
I think the splitting up of the extras unit was done haphazardly. It
doesn't really give any
benefit to split up the library fo chicken extensions, since loading
one or two eggs will drag in
most of them anyway. I think it's ok to keep the SRFIs separate.
Personally I would like to go further in splitting files (Unit library
itself is kinda unwieldy), creating units like 'pathname' and
'system'. (Already mentioned by John Cowan as I was babbling.)
Therefore I'd like to introduce a new library unit (say
"chicken-stuff" [*]) that for the time
being just loads the other units and provides the necessary imports.
Nothing else
will be changed, with the exception of the manual. We can provide a
placeholder
extension for pre 4.1.6 chickens (just like Mario did for the
"files" unit).
Is it ok to make this change, or does somebody see a problem with
this?
The creation of a "compound module" for a convenient Chicken Utility
Library to head-off a dive into insanity seems necessary.
I do want to endorse the suggestion by Alex for an '(extend
MODULE ...)' form; I build these manually. Would a consumer need to
'require-library' to get the binary of the extended module or just
require the extending module or both? Should extending a subset of a
module and/or renaming/prefixing the identifiers be supported?
cheers,
felix
[*] a lame name - any suggestions are welcome
Hum, John's "roaster" is cute.
_______________________________________________
Chicken-hackers mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Best Wishes,
Kon
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?, (continued)
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?, Alex Shinn, 2009/09/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?, John Cowan, 2009/09/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?, John Cowan, 2009/09/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?, felix winkelmann, 2009/09/02
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?, John Cowan, 2009/09/02
Re: [Chicken-hackers] too many core modules?,
Kon Lovett <=