[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: felix . winkelmann
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] Regarding the hide declaration, #1376
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 09:17:04 +0200

> Evan Hanson <address@hidden> writes:
> >> Which foo should be hidden?  Both, or none?
> >
> > Personally, I'd expect the following behaviour, depending on where the
> > declaration appears:
> >
> I did some tests with and without the POC patch I sent yesterday.
> Some observations:
> (these are the only variables with differing behaviour, see the
> attached diff)
> - foo1, bar1, foo2, bar2 are now hidden correctly
> - foo7, bar7, foo8, bar8 are now hidden incorrectly. This should be easy
> to fix by changing the visibility value of the identifier in the export macro.


Sorry, I'm  rather late to this discussion, and I apologize for that. But note 
the whole idea to extend the hide declaration for unexporting from modules is
bogus. Declarations work at a completely different level, and aren't even aware
of syntax-bindings, IIRC. If you want to make a module-level identifier not 
then just remove it from the export list. If you are forced to use "*", then a 
form (like "unexport") would be better. Declarations are not the right place for


reply via email to

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