From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't mix definitions and expressions in SRFI-9 Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:36:19 +0100 Message-ID: <871v2jvyr0.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8762rwqk2p.fsf@gmx.at> <87mxl77un3.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1299505185 3358 80.91.229.12 (7 Mar 2011 13:39:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:39:45 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 07 14:39:41 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@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 1Pwaex-0006P7-9T for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:39:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55124 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pwaeu-0003HT-Lr for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:39:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52749 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pwabx-0001Uk-Te for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:36:34 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pwabw-0007Kd-KV for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:36:33 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:58680) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pwabw-0007KU-FA for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:36:32 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pwabu-00053R-C2 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:36:30 +0100 Original-Received: from 193.50.110.208 ([193.50.110.208]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:36:30 +0100 Original-Received: from ludo by 193.50.110.208 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:36:30 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 34 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.50.110.208 X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 17 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vent=F4se?= an 219 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.110013 (No Gnus v0.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:zbl7xpv9G7YA+bfW7ygWct6dSJ4= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:11809 Archived-At: 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. Thanks, Ludo’.