Re: Module hierarchies, aliasing, and dependencies

[Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Bart Schaefer" wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to rely on a symbol that's defined *inside* the
> module to determine whether a module has been loaded?  Similar to the way
> (provides 'name) works in emacs libraries?

Yes, this sounds better.  That would have fixed [some of] Will's
difficulties.  Also, I've been wondering for a while how to provide a test
version of a module under a different name.  This would be a good solution.

> One way to approach this would be to add another function, like the boot
> and cleanup functions that already exist, which is called when searching
> the list of modules.  We could define this function to return a string
> that is compared to the module being searched for; or we could pass the
> string being searched for into the function and let it return a truth
> value.  If the function isn't defined by a given module, then compare the
> name strings as is done now.

Given the way modules work, a function-based system is presumably the right
one.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Work: pws@xxxxxxx
Web: http://www.pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk