|Subject:||Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules|
|Date:||Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:29:48 -0400|
Unexport seems to me to be solving a non-problem.
- import-syntax (WTF)
- import-syntax-for-syntax (WTF)
- export (which I always found rather useless, given that you have a
list of exports right at the top already)
Unfortunately, because it's not Scheme, this language isn't (easily?)
programmable by the user.
So there's no ambiguity whatsoever: you can have a library
called (rename file pattern) and it can always be distinguished from
a rename of an identifier from a library, because "file" and "pattern"
are not valid library names.
Regarding the list syntax versus symbols, it would be easier on
our users, porting-wise, to only allow symbols as library names.
It also maps more clearly to the file system. Aesthetically and
for compatibility with other Schemes, I'd prefer the list syntax
only. But accepting both is (in hindsight) quite the mistake.
We can still change things before it's too late...
What happens if you have an export list that includes both a prefixed
identifier and the same unprefixed identifier? [...]
Perhaps a saner approach is to only ever import
identifiers that actually have the prefix.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|