Hi Ludo, On Thu, Sep 02 2010, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello! > [...] >>> 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? > > No, they’re not internal. They’re just (pseudo-)anonymous modules that > ended up in the module hierarchy, like any other module. Evaluate > (module-name (make-module)) and you’ve added another one. :-) Oh, i see. (Then, i could/should probably test anonymous modules in the new session.test too.) >> 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? > > I agree that as users we’d rather not see these modules, especially from > Geiser. But they have to be there. > > So, unless I’m missing an elegant design trick to avoid this, I think > you’re bound to use heuristics to filter them out (e.g., get rid of > modules whose name contains white spaces.) Well, something along those lines is what Geiser is actually doing right now :) Thanks for the clarification. Cheers, jao -- Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped. -Elbert Hubbard
