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

[Peter Bex]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:34:19AM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> 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.

If I recall correctly, the s48-modules egg also generates two modules per
package declaration: one that's "internal" with a leading underscore and
one that's the actual module for public consumption.

And of course CHICKEN itself also does this in several files.

So there's some precedence of having a single source file that exports
multiple modules.  I think it's worth supporting.

Cheers,
Peter

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature