[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376
From: |
megane |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376 |
Date: |
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 15:04:56 +0300 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 24.4.1 |
Evan Hanson <address@hidden> writes:
> If I understand correctly, this would effectively be an "unexport" of
> sorts, like so:
Yes, that's what I was thinking.
>
> 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.
Here's a quick POC doing this.
It filters out all identifiers marked 'hidden from the syntax-exports
and variable exports lists in ##sys#finalize-module.
It doesn't touch the indirect exports list. I'm not sure how that should
be handled.
Applies to the 4.12.0 tarball.
If you think this is a valid approach I can clean it up and add some tests.
drop-hidden-module-exports.patch
Description: Text Data
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, Evan Hanson, 2017/06/05
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, Peter Bex, 2017/06/05
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, Evan Hanson, 2017/06/05
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, megane, 2017/06/06
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, felix . winkelmann, 2017/06/06
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, megane, 2017/06/06
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, felix . winkelmann, 2017/06/06
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376, Peter Bex, 2017/06/06
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376,
megane <=