Re: (define-module (foo) #:import (...)), a la r6rs

[David Pirotte]

Hi all,

> >> So what do you all think about:
> >>
> >>   (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)))
> >
> > What do you think?
> 
> 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.
> 
> What do you think about that? :-)
> 
> Andy

I 'feel' that a module uses another or several other modules. I feel that 
'import'
is too close to some sort of 'cuisine interne', to my HO. Therefore I would 
prefer,
consistently with myself :), #:use-modules

What would be a must for me, and may be others ?, would be having a possibility
within 'define-module', to specify or globally or per used modules, that we also
wish to re export their public interface.

Cheers,
David