Re: [Chicken-users] to "uses" or not to "uses"

[Jörg F . Wittenberger]

On Mar 25 2013, Peter Bex wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:52:39AM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
> > On Mar 25 2013, Peter Bex wrote:
> > These both don't cut it for me.
> >
> > I'm using rather often (import (only module ....) (except from sonthing))
> >
> > Both use and require-extension seem to import all bindings.
>
> Please read the manual; USE accepts these import specifiers as well, and

Sorry, I'm confused.  A moment ago I tried and it complained.
Dunno what I did wrong.

> like I pointed out before, you can also use require-library followed by
> an import (the require-library form just loads the code and makes it
> available).

OK, so how would this be different from leaving things as they are,
i.e. (declare (uses ..)) instead of re-quire-library?
(Both followed by an import)

Any advantage in using require-library?

> > Also at the moment I can't really get the thing to use the statically
> > bound .o files reliably.  The stripped down test case picks it up.
> > But in the full code, it fails with ##sys#require not finding the
> > code.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by this.  USE doesn't work with
> statically linked objects, only dynamically linked libraries.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter