Re: [Chicken-users] to "uses" or not to "uses"

[Jörg F . Wittenberger]

On Mar 24 2013, Peter Bex wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:05:49PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
> > For some reason, several - though not all - procedures
> > turn out to be undefined (e.g. resolve to an unbound value
> > and then segfault accordingly).
>
> Segfaults should only happen if aggressive optimizations are
> enabled.
>
> > To me this looks (at the moment) as if the uses clause enforce
> > the correct initialization order, while the imports just declare
> > what's seen by the compiler.
>
> Sounds like you may have some phasing issues; definitions in a
> module aren't seen by macros defined in the same module, unless
> you define-for-syntax them.  Converting old-style Scheme into
> modules is kind of tricky, since with older code you could be a
> lot sloppier about which definitions are available when.  Now you
> have to be precise about at which level a definition exists.
>
> However, without some concrete examples, we can only guess why
> stuff isn't working for you.

Nah, the concrete example I gave could be expanded.  Though
I hope we can get away without.

I have an tedious, but otherwise simple task to get those
syntax definitions imported.  The compiler will complain.

What's more tricky is that bindings, e.g., make-hash-table
resolve to unbond in the runtime initialization even though
there is an (import srfi-69) in the module.

I can "fix" this by giving a (uses srfi-69) before the module.
But that's precisely what I feel it's wrong.

> Cheers,
> Peter