Re: [PATCH] Fix for `submodules' in (ice-9 session) (closes #30062)

[Jose A. Ortega Ruiz]

Hi Ludo,

On Thu, Sep 02 2010, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

> Hello!
>

[...]

>>> psyntax expects modules to have a name so that it can refer to them in
>>> expanded code.  Thus, there can be no anonymous modules: modules are
>>> always given a name, see ‘module-name’.  This allows things like the
>>> “compile in fresh module” test to work.
>>
>> I see. But then, aren't those modules something internal to psyntax's
>> workings?
>
> No, they’re not internal.  They’re just (pseudo-)anonymous modules that
> ended up in the module hierarchy, like any other module.  Evaluate
> (module-name (make-module)) and you’ve added another one.  :-)

Oh, i see. (Then, i could/should probably test anonymous modules in
the new session.test too.)

>> And if so, shouldn't they be filtered out from the return value of
>> module-submodules (or not be traversed by the apropos-fold)? As a user
>> of those procedures, i find the appearance of those modules a bit
>> confusing (the only use case in client code i can think of is when
>> using the return value of current-module). Am i missing something?
>
> I agree that as users we’d rather not see these modules, especially from
> Geiser.  But they have to be there.
>
> So, unless I’m missing an elegant design trick to avoid this, I think
> you’re bound to use heuristics to filter them out (e.g., get rid of
> modules whose name contains white spaces.)

Well, something along those lines is what Geiser is actually doing right
now :)

Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers,
jao
-- 
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
 -Elbert Hubbard