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

[Jose A. Ortega Ruiz]

On Thu, Jul 28 2011, Andy Wingo wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was hacking on Dorodango today, in a script that happened to have a
> Guile-style (define-module ...) block, and I was importing pieces of an
> rnrs library.  Then I needed to update the import set to provide what
> was needed.  In the middle of making a keyboard macro to add
> #:use-module before the library names, I realized that `library' is
> actually a lot better in this regard, in that you just have one `import'
> block, and all the libraries are listed there without having a prefix on
> each one.
>
> 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)
>             ...))

fwiw, i like the second form better (looks more schemish to me), and i agree
both forms are an improvement over #:use-module.

jao
-- 
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
 -Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980)