Re: [Chicken-users] Conflict between simple-macros and other extensions?

[Graham Fawcett]

On 10/3/05, felix winkelmann <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 10/3/05, Raffael Cavallaro <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Using the latest 2.2 release, with (or without) the hash patch, if I
> > compile the simple-macros egg and try to use it and, for example the
> > posix extension, I get odd errors:
> >
> > #;1> (require-extension simple-macros)
> > #;2> (use posix)
>
> Try;
>
> (require-module posix-module)
> (import posix)

You know, Felix -- it would be great to have a single, well-written,
side-by-side comparison of '(use require-extension require-module
import load ...) somewhere. I respect that there must be valid reasons
for having all of these directives. Though the application developer
in me cries out "just give me one directive that Does The Right Thing
in any context!", I'm willing to pat the AD-in-me on the head and
console him if there's a good rationale for maintaining this rather
large suite of inclusion/linkage directives.

In your copious free time, perhaps? Or could another Chickenista
prepare such a guide for the hungry masses?

(As an aside, I think there's an interesting parallel between this
issue and the alternate-build-tools discussion that's currently on the
list. They're both about expressing relationships between code units,
and providing necessary cues to build-tools to bring those units
together. Although tight couplings are generally bad form, it would be
very nice to see a build-tool that was better integrated with Chicken,
and "spoke the same language" as the '(require import load) suite.
(Sorry, this is a fuzzy thought from a high-level user, but perhaps
there's a kernel of value in there for the Chicken-hackers in the
crowd?))

Graham