[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Modules with Circular Dependencies
From: |
Noah Lavine |
Subject: |
Modules with Circular Dependencies |
Date: |
Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:15:41 -0400 |
Hello all,
I recently ran up against an issue about modules with circular
dependencies while working on PEG stuff. I reduced it to the following
test case.
Here is file "test-a.scm":
(define-module (test-a)
#:use-module (test-b))
(define-syntax hello
(syntax-rules ()
((hello) "Hello, world!\n")))
And here is "test-b.scm":
(define-module (test-b)
#:use-module (test-a))
(display (hello))
As you can see, test-a and test-b have a circular dependency in which
test-a defines syntax that test-b uses.
If I run "guile -L "." -s test-a.scm", I get the error
;;; WARNING: compilation of /Users/noah/Desktop/guile/guile/test-a.scm failed:
;;; key unbound-variable, throw_args ("module-lookup" "Unbound
variable: ~S" (hello) #f)
Clearly the order of compilation is a problem. So I tried this
modified test-a.scm:
(define-module (test-a))
(define-syntax hello
(syntax-rules ()
((hello) "Hello, world!\n")))
(use-modules (test-b))
I moved the reference to test-b to the end, but got the same error.
So clearly the module system doesn't like circular dependencies on
syntax. I think it probably should understand them. I have a feeling
that they don't end up adding complexity to compilation, even though
it seems like they would, because in order to compile a module you
have to search its dependencies for syntax definitions anyway.
However, either way, I don't think this issue is documented in the
manual.
So what do you all think should happen in this case?
Noah
- Modules with Circular Dependencies,
Noah Lavine <=