Re: module questions

[Matthias Felleisen <matthias@ccs.neu.edu>]

Then redefine define so it expands into a define (old) plus a
public. That's probably what Eli meant. -- Matthias

  > X-Authentication-Warning: fast.cs.utah.edu: majordom set sender to owner-plt-scheme@flux.cs.utah.edu using -f
  > From: Michael Vanier <mvanier@bbb.caltech.edu>
  > Cc: plt-scheme@fast.cs.utah.edu
  > Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 20:11:43 -0800 (PST)
  > Sender: owner-plt-scheme@fast.cs.utah.edu
  > Precedence: bulk
  > X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20010714
  > 
  > > From: Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org>
  > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
  > > Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 01:04:58 -0500
  > > Sender: eli@CS.Cornell.EDU
  > > 
  > > BTW, if it really bothers you to do a define/provide for every
  > > definition, you can define a macro that will do it for you -- you can
  > > even override the normal define by that one so it'll even look the
  > > same, but I think this will require using your own module as a
  > > primitive one (the thing which is normally `mzscheme').
  > > -- 
  > >           ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
  > >                   http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!
  > > 
  > 
  > I hadn't thought of this; thanks for bringing it up.  It's like
  > `define-public' in guile.  OTOH I don't see why, given that you are allowed
  > to export all the bindings from an imported module with a single line in
  > the provide statement, you can't also export all the bindings in the
  > current module, or (better) all but some selected internal functions, which
  > is normally what I'd want to do.  It sounds like an oversight to me.
  > 
  > Mike
  > 
  >