[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] library unit restructuring

From: Felix Winkelmann
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] library unit restructuring
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 19:41:15 +0200 (CEST)

From: John Cowan <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] library unit restructuring
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 13:13:22 -0400

> Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
>> Ah, very good. A nice list. I like the simple generic names "string",
>> "list". It would be nice to have some hierarchical naming for core
>> modules, what do you think about "chicken.string", "chicken.list"
>> etc. (even though I prefer the plural form, that is, "strings")? 
> +1 on all these points.  I too prefer the plural, but the R7RS WG voted
> for the singular.

Ok, good to know.

>> There is some ambiguity with that, when import-modifiers come into
>> play...
> The R7RS-small committee thought about that, and decided that people
> who name their modules (only this) or (except that) deserve to lose.
> In short, the import-modifiers are much more important than the ability
> to use four particular words in library names.

I think we talked about this before. I have to check whether there are
any syntactic cases where list-syntax for module names would collide
with existing use of module names (functors, implicit import-modifiers
in "use", etc.) Originally, I was somewhat sceptical about allowing
this, but since R7RS has it and since it looks less offensive than
using "chicken.whatever", we might as well just go for it.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]