Re: [Chicken-users] that module system...

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:33:03AM +0100, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
> In fact, no. A *proper* way of doing it would be to
> integrate it right with respect to macros. And that would
> need a re-implementation of the macro-system as
> a whole (perhaps like the new PLT system).
> Batch-compilation and macros (especially hygienic)
> are a bit of a problem.

Is that something you see happening in chicken? A proper module system
that involves doing macros correctly?

My point of view is this, screw modules. :)

The only thing you need is compiled macros(both kinds) and compiled
forms of the foreign type specifications, that you can use with your
unit-based stuff. Then, there is no more need for "header files" and
the associated messyness that goes with them.

Then, make csc take a flag when it compiles non-toplevel code so you can
use it to batch compile things and then link them together at the end.

My $0.02.

-pete