Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #3

[Ludovic Courtès]

Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

> I still don't like the module option (no surprise there), and I think
> that the other parts of the patch could be made a bit simpler (which
> to my mind is a Good Thing).  To be completely concrete about what I
> mean, here is a version of your patch which I prefer (untested except
> by make check).  Please let me know what you think.

It seems equally acceptable to me.  Originally, I decided to not expose
the `current-reader' fluid in order to be consistent with other
"stealthy" uses of fluids, like `current-module' (the fluid itself is
not exported, only a setter and a getter are).  But this has the
drawback of requiring the `dynamic-wind' hair in `basic-load'.  And it
also looks more mysterious or magic to user, which is not a good thing.

So either way will be fine to me.

Thanks!
Ludovic.