Re: Rationale behind the module paths in definition of the module

[Amirouche Boubekki]

I find this surprising too. IMO, it's not useful to declare the file a module at all.

Similarly having to "export" or "re-export" procedures and variables is not helpful. Having everything exported by default makes development easier, even if it can lead to name clash, imports can be renamed. Indeed It's a detail -- that aligns with how other languages work with modules. That's said, this can be worked out a project basis by defining some macros.

It's not my top priority "bug", having better traceback would be much more helpful. I started to look at it without success yet.

On Thu Jan 08 2015 at 12:48:46 PM Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer <address@hidden> wrote:

Alpha Omega <address@hidden> writes:

> I am just curious about the decision to embed path info in the module
> file itself.

The '(foo bar baz)' is not path info, it's the name of the module. :-)

The filesystem path mimics the components of the module name.

Taylan