Re: Move Guile-style modules from scm to scm-modules (issue 567140045 by address@hidden)

[Urs Liska]

Am Mittwoch, den 29.01.2020, 07:01 -0800 schrieb address@hidden:
> On 2020/01/29 12:20:10, mail5 wrote:
> > Unfortunately I haven't set up a build system on my new computer
> > yet,
> so this
> > patch is not tested locally at all, so I'm humbly waiting for the
> automated
> > tests to succeed or fail ...
> 
> I don't like the "use-modules clauses adjusted accordingly".  I don't
> think it makes sense readjusting use-modules clauses all the time
> while
> we are deciding on the final module organisation, so I'd strongly
> suggest first biting the bullet and deciding on a syntax for a
> user-level command able to load Scheme modules without further
> options,
> and then introduce that command.  In that manner, future directory
> organisations (which are almost certain to come) will not affect the
> source of user-level documents any more.
> 
> https://codereview.appspot.com/567140045/

Maybe I'm missing something, but AFAICS there will always be the need
for a module path like (ice-9 regex), or (scm display-lily). We will
have that with *any* user-facing load syntax.

My thought was to separate the two different types of .scm files in
that directory, and that could of course also be achieved by moving the
*other* files, those that are loaded with ly:load from lily.scm to a
different directory.

Or - of course - I can simply drop this and add new modules to that
same directory for now.

>