Re: [Chicken-hackers] [C5] `extension' components & non-modules

[felix . winkelmann]

> Should extension components specified in .egg files be required to be
> modules?
>
> If I understand correctly, that's the case at the moment, as the build
> script will try to compile .import.scm files supposedly emited for files
> specified as extensions (they might not exist if the files don't declare
> a module).
>
> Should we allow non-modules to be specified as extension components?
>
> What about files that declare multiple modules?

All good questions. I'm for making this as simple as possible. The overhead
for having a module for each extension shouldn't be too much and there
appears to me (at least at this stage) no disxadvantage of requiring an
extension to be a module. Is there a particular use-case that would make
the current approach problematic?

The multi-module case is indeed not covered. There is an note on the
wiki regarding functors that emit 2 import libs (used in some places),
this has to be handled automatically (compile + install <module>.import.so
and <module>_.import.so, if the latter one exists). Another option would be
to add .egg properties specifying the output modules.


felix