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

[Alpha Omega]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 08/01/15 14:46, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer wrote:
> 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
> 

Ok, after reading up a bit on this, i understood the Guile naming
approach is
analogous to the r6rs library standard. Which is fine :) . Oh, and i
love the
possibility to fine grain the import/exporting of names. The module
system
is very similar to that found in the new Fortran varieties, I wonder
where the
inspiration was drawn from in both cases.

A0

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUsQP/AAoJELoKbu7/AzdHF/gH/1UyD0fFvm+k8orrSavwQrNp
eOlGqnzzXj3mL7qjYxcfhP7RCWYqPOelIkOm+0XFG3CjtYBshMs6beYCDnuDJzEv
FYOSgGqYFKA1ETTPO6oquwW7BAd7RxtsVlm4tbVozdFuCFZU6iRrGo7ZKd9xtJS8
PTtm1svDZgg9UALY6NTMnwSwkdU3TFlIb9ln8HTntbqC7RG/H503Wxvau1uyBtgS
dQdeb0Saak7/Ym4JFucTKmRJj3mzoulrYZAzvOfqULg4ctd++lyEGCNoShKSLKmG
NqLdKgFcbRB7202azYBYuFUjY0gns+cwp6PZ/uLhbDKtjH9sB10rpvEwHYO5Hec=
=CjOL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----