Re: [Chicken-users] Re: sequences egg

[F. Wittenberger]

Am Montag, den 22.11.2010, 03:55 -0500 schrieb Felix:
> > If I had to deal with a name clash, I'd just put a renamer-module in
> > between.
> > 
> > This winds up in *much* less mental effort, than memorising new terms or
> > abbreviations for the same argument structure (modulo some type
> > replacements).
> > 
> > Given (import (prefix __ X)) I'd encourage everyone to use the most
> > generic forms like "fold", "map", "+" etc. for equivalent procedures
> > whenever exported.
> > (Something I'd love to do for years, but always felt impractical for
> > hysterical reasons.)
> > 
> > If that's not what you want, a simple text replacement could provide top
> > level definitions which never clash.  And for wherever modules are used,
> > it's just a matter of a prefix upon import.
> 
> Good point. Yet, it may be very confusing for someone looking at code,
> at least for standard bread-and-butter procedures like `map' and
> `length'. 

Good point again.

Possible boilerplate with chicken as it is:

(module modx (export + -)
  (import (prefix scheme s:))
  ...
  (define (x:+ ...) ...)
  ...
  (define (x:- ...) ...)
  ...
  ;; eventually a block like this
  (define + x:+)
  (define - x:-)
)

However that could be turned into a feature request:

(module modx (export (prefix x: *))
  (import (prefix scheme s:))
  ...
  (define (x:+ ...) ...)
  ...
  (define (x:- ...) ...)
  ...
)

Where "(export (prefix x: *))" means "all bindings with prefix x:".

/Jörg