[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Christian Kellermann
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] -block: a solution leading to more questions
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:46:29 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

* 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")

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

Kind regards,


In the world, there is nothing more submissive and weak than
water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong, nothing can
surpass it. --- Lao Tzu

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]