Hello :)
On Thu 10 Nov 2011 00:50, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> skribis:
>
>> On Thu 28 Jul 2011 23:23, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>>> Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> skribis:
>>>
>>>> (define-module (foo)
>>>> #:import ((bar)
>>>> (only (baz) qux foo)
>>>> ...))
>>>>
>>>> Or even:
>>>>
>>>> (define-module (foo)
>>>> (import (bar)
>>>> (only (baz) qux foo)
>>>> ...))
>>>
>>> I’d prefer #:use-modules (plural), for consistency:
>>>
>>> (define-module (foo)
>>> #:use-modules ((bar)
>>> (baz) #:select (qux foo)
>>> (chbouib) #:renamer (symbol-prefix-proc 'p)))
>>
>> I don't like the paren placement so much. Consistency is important, but
>> TBH I think that we should phase out the "use-module" / "use-modules"
>> terminology, in favor of "import" terminology of r6rs and the coming
>> r7rs.
>
> I find aesthetics important, but phasing out such an important construct
> “just” for aesthetics seems harsh to me.
Yeah, but it is not simply aesthetics: it is consistency with other
schemes, `import' is the natural converse of `export', and the important
cases of "import only these bindings", "rename these particular
bindings", and "import this module with a prefix" are really easy in the
r6rs import language.
> Besides, stuff like #:renamer is strictly more powerful than what
> R[67]RS provide, IIRC.
No argument there! But I rarely use it. Even #:select is a bit of a
PITA to use:
#:use-module ((a) #:select (b c d))
#:use-module ((e) #:renamer (symbol-prefix-proc 'p:))
vs
(import (only (a) b c d)
(prefix (e) p:))
In particular the #:use-module variant has non-obvious paren placement
for #:select two places: the wrapper for the whole form, and the list of
bindings. And of course #:renamer would still be there for you to
use. if you wanted to.
Dunno, I still think this would be a good idea, but I think we would
need to come to agreement first.
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
