require (was Re: Problem with define-private)

[Jocelyn Paine <popx at pop3 dot ifs dot org dot uk>]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Nic Ferrier wrote:

> >>> Jocelyn Paine <popx@pop3.ifs.org.uk> 30-Jan-01 5:18:49 PM >>>
> 
> >Ah. Does this also explain the problem with define-alias 
> >that I mentioned in the other mail this morning, or was that 
> >something else? And also the fact that 'require' doesn't seem 
> >to work with loaded files?
> 
> Since (define-private) has .class semantics and the interpreter is
> not compiling the source code to a class: yes.
> 
> You don't need (require) because having the required module in the
> interpreter's classpath will cause things to be loaded (as far as I've
> seen).
> 
> (require) doesn't cause an error in the interpreter though so you
> don't have to comment it out or anything.
> 
If I have two modules M1 and M2, and M2 has a require for M1 in it, then
if I load M2 in the interpreter, the require is ignored: I also have to
load M1 (this is assuming that neither M1 nor M2 has been compiled). So
no, the require doesn't cause an error, but I do have to remember that it
has no effect.

Jocelyn