From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: [bug #30169] Auto-compilation failure of a module doesn't lead to a failure [1.9.11] Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 22:19:27 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20100617-130637.sv15145.59405@savannah.gnu.org> <20100620-142300.sv15145.70745@savannah.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1277065788 22088 80.91.229.12 (20 Jun 2010 20:29:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:29:48 +0000 (UTC) To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , bug-guile@gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 20 22:29:46 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQR9F-0007iq-2T for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 22:29:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39393 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OQR9E-0003Wc-Ek for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:29:44 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51356 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OQR97-0003VX-KU for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:29:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQR96-0004MR-5B for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:29:37 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:42574 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQR96-0004MA-3R; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:29:36 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8491ABD2F6; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:29:33 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=514Tbq5Mc7ZM lrLS5e2VtEx0hT8=; b=Rm2FLU7hjNBCDr6QUzU2XZ4MXG1XIUkvOMmAX9i1gAf1 EO/RKLTCoHqtUxhm33kV5AYlpNphH7UfUsJ5a5Qf2DuaBLPyj9rHOiCoxLQgJpvu n87r6YISuKVZwAeGkQyGzVYHBxi1WkU66OKQxZ8mhN7C5WS2BnqP73rpEf3tAP8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:subject :references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=hxAB4A PV8VahFIiFElKTJRWdk4vFZe4FHMoXhVMXb2lPdlOYxxiupB1YFHYgr4qJ6ZoeDs l7fSeC7Ii70eKDKteyWQarGxWfAbHZV4FYW0mZVHQdI63cbdU3WyGKCzzMPspjwP wnok3GsvXTuoOduvhiKIB4frmyUHdGgDY5e8s= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71926BD2F5; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:29:32 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [83.35.138.154]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C6BEBD2F0; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:29:29 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20100620-142300.sv15145.70745@savannah.gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22's?= message of "Sun, 20 Jun 2010 14:23:00 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 88B6F2B6-7CAA-11DF-AFC2-9056EE7EF46B-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:4688 Archived-At: Hi, On Sun 20 Jun 2010 16:23, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wr= ites: >> So, you want Guile to fail faster for this error; how do you distinguish >> it from eval-when errors as above? Or would you prefer that eval-when >> errors lead to failures as well? > > Do you mean that, for programs written to be interpreted, which lack prop= er > =E2=80=98eval-when=E2=80=99 clauses, the idea was to fall back to interpr= etation when > auto-compilation fails? That would indeed be friendlier to programs writ= ten > for previous versions of Guile. Yes, that was the goal. > However, in the example I gave, somehow, an error should occur. With 1.8= you > would get an error when reading =E2=80=98foo.scm=E2=80=99, whereas here i= t=E2=80=99s just > silently ignored, which sounds wrong. Indeed. Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/