Amirouche Boubekki <amirouche.boube...@gmail.com> writes: > I find this surprising too. IMO, it's not useful to declare the file a > module at all.
You can have single-name-component modules '(foo)' in corresponding files foo.scm if you want stand-alone files/modules. > 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. That sounds like a bad idea. A top-level definition is not necessarily part of a public API. Even C has a solution to this! :-) Taylan
