ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hi, > > Andy Wingo writes: > >> On Sun 06 Mar 2011 23:26, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> >>> Andreas Rottmann writes: >>> >>>> The expansion of `define-inlinable' contained an expression, which made >>>> SRFI-9's `define-record-type' fail in non-toplevel contexts ("definition >>>> used in expression context"). >>> >>> SRFI-9 says “Record-type definitions may only occur at top-level”, and >>> I’m inclined to stick to it. If we diverge, then people could write >>> code thinking it’s portable SRFI-9 code while it’s not. >> >> Does anyone actually care about this? We provide many compatible >> extensions to standard interfaces. It seems like this would be an >> "unnecessary restriction which makes `let-record-type' seem necessary". > > OK, I lost. ;-) > > But, can we: > > 1. Document the extension. > > 2. Choose PROC-NAME such that -Wunused-toplevel won’t complain. > There’s a trick for this: if it contains white space, then > -Wunused-toplevel won’t complain; however, it has to be generated > deterministically because it can appear in other compilation units, > so we can’t use ‘generate-temporaries’ here. > I think the attached version of the patch takes your suggestions into account.