Cool. I'll take a look at this. On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 14:29, Andrew Sutherland wrote: > Miles Egan <miles@caddr.com> writes: > > > Is there any way to use a module without dumping all of its exports into > > the local namespace? Generally I prefer to use explicit namespace > > prefixes. > > > > miles > > A while back I added use/mangle. Assuming it hasn't gone away, my > original post still holds. I think that provides what you want. It > goes a little something like this: > > ----- > > Anonymous CVS (see info at Wiki) now has use/mangle support checked > in. This is relevant for those of you who want to do things like: > > (use/mangle tests/manglea a:) > (use/mangle tests/mangleb b:) > > (a:func-a) > (a:func-b) > (b:func-a) > (b:func-b) > > All it does is import everything exported by the module in question, > but with the given prefix mangled on to the binding name. > > For those who were desiring module:binding, this is equivalent to what > you wanted, although it's usable for other things too. For example, > you could also bind on "mail-" instead, or something like that. > > This should help deal with the instinct of prefixing method names > yourself, out of a fear of name collisions. (Eg, earlier I found > myself prefixing "mail-" onto functions just because I was concerned > about binding collisions with something more important.) Note that I > am one of those people would ideally like a unified generic system > without the constraints on the number of parameters, but this is a > useful thing regardless, and very helpful in the short term. > > ----- > > Andrew -- Miles Egan <miles@caddr.com>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part