14.7 unit versus module

► |  | The Racket Guide

1 | Welcome to Racket
2 | Racket Essentials
3 | Built-In Datatypes
4 | Expressions and Definitions
5 | Programmer-Defined Datatypes
6 | Modules
7 | Contracts
8 | Input and Output
9 | Regular Expressions
10 | Exceptions and Control
11 | Iterations and Comprehensions
12 | Pattern Matching
13 | Classes and Objects
14 | Units
15 | Reflection and Dynamic Evaluation
16 | Macros
17 | Creating Languages
18 | Concurrency and Synchronization
19 | Performance
20 | Parallelism
21 | Running and Creating Executables
22 | More Libraries
23 | Dialects of Racket and Scheme
24 | Command-Line Tools and Your Editor of Choice
| Bibliography
| Index

▼ | 14 | Units

14.1 | Signatures and Units
14.2 | Invoking Units
14.3 | Linking Units
14.4 | First-Class Units
14.5 | Whole-module Signatures and Units
14.6 | Contracts for Units
14.7 | unit versus module

Racket
top contents ← prev up next →

### 14.7 unit versus module🔗ℹ

As a form for modularity, unit complements module:

- The module form is primarily for managing a universal namespace. For example, it allows a code fragment to refer specifically to the car operation from racket/base—the one that extracts the first element of an instance of the built-in pair datatype—as opposed to any number of other functions with the name car. In other words, the module construct lets you refer to the binding that you want.

- The unit form is for parameterizing a code fragment with respect to most any kind of run-time value. For example, it allows a code fragment to work with a car function that accepts a single argument, where the specific function is determined later by linking the fragment to another. In other words, the unit construct lets you refer to a binding that meets some specification.

The lambda and class forms, among others, also allow parameterization of code with respect to values that are chosen later. In principle, any of those could be implemented in terms of any of the others. In practice, each form offers certain conveniences—such as allowing overriding of methods or especially simple application to values—that make them suitable for different purposes.

The module form is more fundamental than the others, in a sense. After all, a program fragment cannot reliably refer to a lambda, class, or unit form without the namespace management provided by module. At the same time, because namespace management is closely related to separate expansion and compilation, module boundaries end up as separate-compilation boundaries in a way that prohibits mutual dependencies among fragments. For similar reasons, module does not separate interface from implementation.

Use unit when module by itself almost works, but when separately compiled pieces must refer to each other, or when you want a stronger separation between interface (i.e., the parts that need to be known at expansion and compilation time) and implementation (i.e., the run-time parts). More generally, use unit when you need to parameterize code over functions, datatypes, and classes, and when the parameterized code itself provides definitions to be linked with other parameterized code.

top contents ← prev up next →