This is the mail archive of the
kawa@sourceware.org
mailing list for the Kawa project.
Re: r7rs define-library support checked in
- From: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
- To: kawa at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 21:54:58 -0700
- Subject: Re: r7rs define-library support checked in
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <543D7A6F dot 6070204 at bothner dot com> <CC415757-9266-49D4-9F54-23A11E0E714A at theptrgroup dot com>
On 10/14/2014 08:53 PM, Jamison Hope wrote:
Congratulations! How exciting. What is the plan for libraries and
modules?
A define-library will just be another way to write a module - a little like
a module is another way to write a class. If you use define-library
or a traditional module, they'll compile into the same kind of class,
and you can be access either using either require or import. The
main difference is syntax; that you can have multiple define-library
in a single source file; and that define-library won't have all
the Kawa defined bindings - you'll have to explicitly import things,
at least (import (scheme base)).
Are they going to coexist?
Yes.
Are modules going to be deprecated in favor of r7rs libraries?
No. I like the module == source file identity as a nicer way to work,
and you don't have to wrap everything inside a define-library forms.
We'll probably do some tweaks. For example I think we'll want to
deprecate require in favor of import, which is more general.
Likewise, might as well use export rather than module-exports.
Something else? [Wondering whether I'll
soon need to scramble to change a bunch of module-using code to r7rs
library equivalents.]
Not if you don't want to.
I see you also bumped the version number all the way from 1.14 to 1.90.
I think we're at the beta stage for 2.0, or as soon as I've made an actual
release of 1.90.
--
--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/