Re: srfi-18 requirements

["Julian Graham" <joolean@gmail.com>]

Works like a charm!  Thanks.


On 10/15/07, Stephen Compall <s11@member.fsf.org> wrote:
> Julian Graham wrote:
> > (SRFI-18 make-condition-variable takes an optional argument that you
> > can use to "name" the condition var).  To work around this, I was
> > going to create backup bindings of the original primitives and then
> > refer to them in my scheme reimplementations, a la:
> >
> > (define guile:make-condition-variable make-condition-variable)
> > (define (make-condition-variable . foo)
> >   (let ((m (guile:make-condition-variable))) (do-something)))
> >
> > ...and even if the user noticed the slightly different behavior, that
> > would be okay, because she'd specifically requested it by loading
> > (srfi srfi-18).
>
> I can always get those if I want them with (@ (guile)
> make-condition-variable).
>
> Also, unless there's a type conflict, I think other existing modules
> simply assume you can deal with more optional arguments than you expect.
>   For example, SRFI-1 adds a third optional argument to assoc, the `='
> argument.  You can use `#:replace' in define-module to suppress the warning.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel