This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
David C. Lutterkort writes: > thi <ttn@mingle.glug.org> writes: > > > able to use `pi' as well as `exact-pi'. Hmmm, one doesn't need > > weird syntactic cruft like `reexport-from-module' at all. (I > > rescind my desire to see it added to guile, having learned > > something by doing this explanation -- thanks!) > > No, no, no ! I think this is a very valuable addition to Guile's > module system, since it makes it easier to understand what's going on > when you look at a module. > > I find it much easier to look at twenty lines of export, > export-syntax and reexport-from-module 'declarations' to understand > the interface of a module than having to look through hundreds of > lines of code with define-public. I never use define-public for this > reason. Yes, this was the impetus (to be able to visually parse a module's interface easily). But there already exists mechanisms for both export and renaming once something is defined inside the module. The value- added (so to speak, yuk yuk) of `reexport-from-module' is in its renaming during the import phase, which brings us to... > The only (very minor) gripe I have is that the name > 'reexport-from-module' is kind of awkward. How about 'export-from' > plain and simple ? Or perhaps something like `renaming-import'? Or, to be consistent w/ current import(ant|ing) names: `renaming-use-module'. The idea would be to not even look at the export side, since export already exists and is well defined. thi