Re: :export vs. define-public

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:

> Those two approaches (:export vs. define-public) to public v. private
> module contours are isomorphic, so what's the big deal?

There is no big deal.  What makes you think there is?  Only
define-public is documented.  :export is not, nor is the more local
(export ...) form that Marius recently mentioned.

> Historically, I suspect that some module system changes made after the
> Cygnus releases were motivated in part because they made the Guile
> module system look more like S48 or some other famous schemes.  And as
> we all know, those other systems reek of the scent of perfection (or
> at least, a perfection-style cologne).  But that's just speculation,
> on my part.  I'm aware that module system changes were originally
> argued (vaguely) for in terms of support for compilation.

I like perfection.  I have access to many many "just do it, screw
perfection" systems.  I'm tired of them.