Re: Document the current module system?

[NIIBE Yutaka]

Martin Grabmueller wrote:
 > I didn't know about that recursive Namespace until now.  I can't
 > remember that I ever needed anything like that...

That's good.  I recommend you not to know about that.  :-)

Because there's little documentation, I guess that people tried to
understand the module system in Guile by reading some of source code.
The questionable concept of Recursive Namespace is described in
boot-9.scm, which is quite confusing (at least for me).

 > I think that the current module system is quite useable and useful as
 > it is now.  Maybe that's the reason why were still waiting for Godot.

Yes.  I agree, use-modules and export are useful.  I don't think 
nested-ref is good (which enables accessing internal of module, say,
non-exported symbols).

Nowadays, I'm thinking about the compatibility of Scheme module and C
module.  We could implement (almost) same feature of use-module/export
in C module:

ProcedureP in moduleA:
------------
moduleA_LTX_scm_ProcedureP
------------

Interface file in moduleA.h (generated for exported symbols):
------------
#define ProcedureP moduleA_LTX_scm_ProcedureP
------------
--