Opened 6 years ago

Closed 5 years ago

#259 closed defect (fixed)

Specify module name in cond-expand as (module <name>) instead of <name>

Reported by: cowan Owned by: alexshinn
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: WG1 - Core Keywords:
Cc:

Description

In CondExpandCowan, the test for the existence/importability of a module is to specify the module name. However, this means module names can't begin with and, or, or not. Draft 3 instead specifies (module module-name), and I think this is better.

Change History (7)

comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by cowan

Now of course this is (library library-name).

comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by alexshinn

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

The draft already specifies this, and there is currently
no non-ambiguous alternative proposed, so closing the
issue.

comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by cowan

  • Resolution fixed deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

Reopening this, because even if there is no other proposal that resolves the ambiguity, it can be resolved by removing the feature. I want the feature, but the WG has to vote it in if we are to have it.

comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by aag

I'm not sure why there is an ambiguity here. Unless a library name is automatically considered a <feature identifier>, which doesn't appear to be true, then library must be wrapped around a library name in order to use it in a cond-expand clause.

John, when you say "I want the feature," which feature do you want? The ability to specify a library directly as a <feature identifier>, or just the ability to specify a library through a library clause?

comment:5 Changed 5 years ago by cowan

What CondExpandCowan says, which is what we voted for in ballot 2
Library names can be used on the same level as feature identifiers (leads to unacceptable ambiguous BNF)
What the draft says, and what I now favor, but not what we voted for
Library names must be wrapped in a (library ...) form
The alternative
Don't allow library names at all

So the choice for this ticket is between the last two.

comment:6 Changed 5 years ago by cowan

  • Status changed from reopened to decided

The WG voted to adopt this proposal.

comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by cowan

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from decided to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.