Hi, I'm using `(module+ plot)` to avoid loading the `plot` library when requiring the enclosing module only.
But it seems that `module+` is dependent on the order of the modules, somewhat contrarily to `module*`. For example, this works: #lang racket (define x 3) (module+ foo (provide y) (define y x)) (module+ test (require (submod ".." foo)) y) But this does not: #lang racket (define x 3) (module+ test) ; *** ADDED (module+ foo (provide y) (define y x)) (module+ test (require (submod ".." foo)) y) But this works: #lang racket (define x 3) (module+ test) (module* foo #f ; *** CHANGED (provide y) (define y x)) (module+ test (require (submod ".." foo)) y) And this works too: #lang racket (define x 3) (module+ foo) ; *** ADDED (module+ test) (module+ foo ; *** (provide y) (define y x)) (module+ test (require (submod ".." foo)) y) I want to use `module+` over `module*` for its concatenation capability, and adding a `(module+ foo)` at the top of my file is no big deal, but, since the docs do not talk about some order dependency of submodules (AFAICT) and only say that `module+` is equivalent to `module*` with #f and concatenation, I was wondering if this was the intended behavior. Actually, `module*` also seems to be dependent of the order, as the following does not work: #lang racket (define x 3) (module* test #f (require (submod ".." foo)) y) (module* foo #f (provide y) (define y x)) >From this I infer that the modules declared by `module+` are collected in order of their first appearance and declared at the end of the module in this same order, therefore after all `module*`. Is this correct? And is it easy enough to have order independence for both `module+` and `module*`, and would it be a good idea in general? Laurent
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
