[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: :export vs. define-public
From: |
Thomas Bushnell, BSG |
Subject: |
Re: :export vs. define-public |
Date: |
04 Sep 2002 17:33:42 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:
> Those two approaches (:export vs. define-public) to public v. private
> module contours are isomorphic, so what's the big deal?
There is no big deal. What makes you think there is? Only
define-public is documented. :export is not, nor is the more local
(export ...) form that Marius recently mentioned.
> Historically, I suspect that some module system changes made after the
> Cygnus releases were motivated in part because they made the Guile
> module system look more like S48 or some other famous schemes. And as
> we all know, those other systems reek of the scent of perfection (or
> at least, a perfection-style cologne). But that's just speculation,
> on my part. I'm aware that module system changes were originally
> argued (vaguely) for in terms of support for compilation.
I like perfection. I have access to many many "just do it, screw
perfection" systems. I'm tired of them.
- :export vs. define-public, Tom Lord, 2002/09/04
- Re: :export vs. define-public,
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <=
- cvs access broken?, Tom Lord, 2002/09/04
- Re: :export vs. define-public, Tom Lord, 2002/09/04
- Re: :export vs. define-public, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/09/04
- Re: :export vs. define-public, Tom Lord, 2002/09/04
- Re: :export vs. define-public, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/09/04
- Re: :export vs. define-public, Tom Lord, 2002/09/04
Re: :export vs. define-public, Eric E Moore, 2002/09/05