Re: Syntatic sugar and identifier permissivity

[Jost Boekemeier <jostobfe at linux dot zrz dot TU-Berlin dot DE>]

Eric Moore <moore@chem.cmu.edu> writes:

> Ok, but as I understand it, your method prevents us from doing this:
> Module A:
> (define-module (example A))
> (define-class <class-A>)
> (define-generic foo)
> (define-method foo ((x <class-A>) (y <class-A>)))
> 
> Module B:
> (define-module (example B)
>                :use-module (example A))
> (define-class <class-B>)
> (define-method foo ((x <class-A>) (y <class-B>)))

I assume you really mean:

(define-module (example B)
               :use-module (example A))
(define-class <class-B>)
(define-method foo ((x <class-A)))

Anyway, "module collection" gives the hint; it is possible to group
your modules into larger "compound modules".

Just wait for my module proposal... :)

Jost