-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08/01/15 14:46, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer wrote: > 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 > Ok, after reading up a bit on this, i understood the Guile naming approach is analogous to the r6rs library standard. Which is fine :) . Oh, and i love the possibility to fine grain the import/exporting of names. The module system is very similar to that found in the new Fortran varieties, I wonder where the inspiration was drawn from in both cases. A0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUsQP/AAoJELoKbu7/AzdHF/gH/1UyD0fFvm+k8orrSavwQrNp eOlGqnzzXj3mL7qjYxcfhP7RCWYqPOelIkOm+0XFG3CjtYBshMs6beYCDnuDJzEv FYOSgGqYFKA1ETTPO6oquwW7BAd7RxtsVlm4tbVozdFuCFZU6iRrGo7ZKd9xtJS8 PTtm1svDZgg9UALY6NTMnwSwkdU3TFlIb9ln8HTntbqC7RG/H503Wxvau1uyBtgS dQdeb0Saak7/Ym4JFucTKmRJj3mzoulrYZAzvOfqULg4ctd++lyEGCNoShKSLKmG NqLdKgFcbRB7202azYBYuFUjY0gns+cwp6PZ/uLhbDKtjH9sB10rpvEwHYO5Hec= =CjOL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
