Re: Rationale behind the module paths in definition of the module

[Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer]

Amirouche Boubekki <address@hidden> writes:

> I find this surprising too. IMO, it's not useful to declare the file a
> module at all. 

You can have single-name-component modules '(foo)' in corresponding
files foo.scm if you want stand-alone files/modules.

> Similarly having to "export" or "re-export" procedures and variables
> is not helpful. Having everything exported by default makes
> development easier, even if it can lead to name clash, imports can be
> renamed. Indeed It's a detail -- that aligns with how other languages
> work with modules. That's said, this can be worked out a project basis
> by defining some macros.

That sounds like a bad idea.  A top-level definition is not necessarily
part of a public API.  Even C has a solution to this! :-)

Taylan