[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Chicken-users] Some questions about CHICKEN 5 eggs and modules

From: Thomas Chust
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Some questions about CHICKEN 5 eggs and modules
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:42:34 +0200

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:17:08 +0200 address@hidden wrote:

> > [...]
> > I can't say that I like this design decision, but I guess I'll have to
> > live with it. If this is unsupported, it also feels strange that
> > the .egg format allows specification of multiple import libraries per
> > extension at all – the provider side of the picture, when you write a
> > library with multiple modules, is supported, but the consumer side,
> > when you try to use it, is suddenly not supported any longer.
> I'm not sure what you mean, some example would be helpful here.
> [...]

Hello Felix,

hmm, I was under the impression that we could now declare multiple
(modules ...) in an (extension ...) but there was no way to access them
because (import ...) would always try to load both the import library
and the extension of the same name.

However, I just realized that my old default approach of doing
(require-library ...) first and (import ...) later still seems to work
fine. Only when commpiling such code, CHICKEN will always complain that
the extensions with the same names as the modules do not exist, but
that's a minor nuisance.

So never mind that stupid question ;-)


There are only two things wrong with C++: The initial concept and the
-- Bertrand Meyer

reply via email to

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