bug#19459: #:export does not honor the merge-generics contract

[David Pirotte <david@altosw.be>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2193 bytes --]

Hello Andy,

> >> However... I believe merge-generics is intended to merge duplicate
> >> imported bindings.  It does not provide a copy-on-write version of an
> >> imported generic, if that generic was not duplicated in the imports.
> >> There is no facility in GOOPS to do that, AFAIU.  

> > It is a module bug, not a GOOPS bug, see my 'personal/local' fix: the problem is
> > that once the user uses #:export, guile's module system create a new binding,
> > and it should not ... [hence this confusion as well: as it is: the module must
> > merge its definition with the imported ones, even if it imported only 1
> > generic ... because of a module bug...]  

> I... I just think you're wrong here, sorry :/ That's just not how the
> system works.  If you #:export an identifier in a module, you create a
> fresh local binding, and that binding doesn't implicitly extend an
> imported binding, merge-generics or no.  Merge-generics only operates on
> the import interface of a module.

I don't think so, and I feel sorry too ;/. We disagree, which is different, and
nobody is 'right' or 'wrong' here. [and I know 'how the system works, I described
it that in the original email, I'd like to change that, hence this thread ...]

IMO, this should never fail:

	,use (b)
	make <b>

Your last sentence states that merge-generics only operates on the import interface
of a module: that is the feature I'm referring to to claim the above:

  [ using #:export ]

	t0	the system creates new 'empty' binding
		at some point 'it' knows it is a gf
	ti	it imports (a)

	now the (b) module interface is facing a duplicate gf binding, and according
	to the user settings wrt to this, it has to merge.

Then you tell me 'yep David, internally the system faced an import situation, and
ok, let's merge, _but_ #:export must export a fresh new ... I can buy that, but
do we have the technology do implement this senario? 

I believe, still referring to your last sentence, the above sentence as well and
respecting your position, that we should rather create/have global setting
'export-rexport-imported-gf' [or a better name.], WDYT?

Happy Hacking,
David

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]