[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (define-module (foo) #:import (...)), a la r6rs
From: |
David Pirotte |
Subject: |
Re: (define-module (foo) #:import (...)), a la r6rs |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:35:24 -0200 |
Hi all,
> >> So what do you all think about:
> >>
> >> (define-module (foo)
> >> #:import ((bar)
> >> (only (baz) qux foo)
> >> ...))
> >>
> >> Or even:
> >>
> >> (define-module (foo)
> >> (import (bar)
> >> (only (baz) qux foo)
> >> ...))
> >
> > I’d prefer #:use-modules (plural), for consistency:
> >
> > (define-module (foo)
> > #:use-modules ((bar)
> > (baz) #:select (qux foo)
> > (chbouib) #:renamer (symbol-prefix-proc 'p)))
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> I don't like the paren placement so much. Consistency is important, but
> TBH I think that we should phase out the "use-module" / "use-modules"
> terminology, in favor of "import" terminology of r6rs and the coming
> r7rs.
>
> What do you think about that? :-)
>
> Andy
I 'feel' that a module uses another or several other modules. I feel that
'import'
is too close to some sort of 'cuisine interne', to my HO. Therefore I would
prefer,
consistently with myself :), #:use-modules
What would be a must for me, and may be others ?, would be having a possibility
within 'define-module', to specify or globally or per used modules, that we also
wish to re export their public interface.
Cheers,
David