[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] that module system...
From: |
Peter Keller |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] that module system... |
Date: |
Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:23:15 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:33:03AM +0100, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
> In fact, no. A *proper* way of doing it would be to
> integrate it right with respect to macros. And that would
> need a re-implementation of the macro-system as
> a whole (perhaps like the new PLT system).
> Batch-compilation and macros (especially hygienic)
> are a bit of a problem.
Is that something you see happening in chicken? A proper module system
that involves doing macros correctly?
My point of view is this, screw modules. :)
The only thing you need is compiled macros(both kinds) and compiled
forms of the foreign type specifications, that you can use with your
unit-based stuff. Then, there is no more need for "header files" and
the associated messyness that goes with them.
Then, make csc take a flag when it compiles non-toplevel code so you can
use it to batch compile things and then link them together at the end.
My $0.02.
-pete