On Wed, Sep 01 2010, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi! > > "Jose A. Ortega Ruiz" <j...@gnu.org> writes: > >> (I'm still curious about the meaning of the >> modules with gensyms as names, though.) > > psyntax expects modules to have a name so that it can refer to them in > expanded code. Thus, there can be no anonymous modules: modules are > always given a name, see ‘module-name’. This allows things like the > “compile in fresh module” test to work.
I see. But then, aren't those modules something internal to psyntax's workings? And if so, shouldn't they be filtered out from the return value of module-submodules (or not be traversed by the apropos-fold)? As a user of those procedures, i find the appearance of those modules a bit confusing (the only use case in client code i can think of is when using the return value of current-module). Am i missing something? Thanks, jao -- Nature uses as little as possible of anything. -Johannes Kepler, astronomer (1571-1630)
