[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376

From: Peter Bex
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:43:16 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 06:09:54PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Is that right? Personally, I'd rather make (declare (hide ...)) simply
> do the right thing -- the right thing being the behaviour you originally
> expected when filing #1376 -- than add a new type of declaration or
> module syntax.
> I think this is similar to what Peter has said on that ticket, so a
> patch of that sort would be very welcome.

This is slightly more complicated due to declare being module-unaware.

(declare (hide foo))

(module a * (import chicken scheme) (define foo 1))
(module b * (import chicken scheme) (define foo 2))

Which foo should be hidden?  Both, or none?

I think the sane thing to do here is to make it error out,
considering there's no top-level foo to hide, and make it
work like this:

(module a *
   (import chicken scheme)
   (define foo 1))
(module b *
   (declare (hide foo))
   (import chicken scheme) (define foo 2))

So here a#foo is visible and exported, while b#foo is hidden and
not exported.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

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