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: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:43:54 +0100 Message-ID: <8739mwc9dh.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8762rwqk2p.fsf@gmx.at> <87mxl77un3.fsf@gnu.org> <871v2jvyr0.fsf@gnu.org> <871v2i4fby.fsf@gmx.at> 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 1299703452 13728 80.91.229.12 (9 Mar 2011 20:44:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 20:44:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas Rottmann Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 09 21:44:07 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 1PxQEo-00082R-DP for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:44:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54692 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PxQEn-0006y6-TD for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:44:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37988 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PxQEj-0006xh-UI for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:44:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PxQEi-0002up-Nj for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:44:01 -0500 Original-Received: from solo.fdn.fr ([80.67.169.19]:57542) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PxQEi-0002ub-CO for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:44:00 -0500 Original-Received: from nixey (reverse-83.fdn.fr [80.67.176.83]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: lcourtes) by smtp.fdn.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 978EA4441C; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 21:43:59 +0100 (CET) X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 19 =?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 In-Reply-To: <871v2i4fby.fsf@gmx.at> (Andreas Rottmann's message of "Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:37:53 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110013 (No Gnus v0.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 80.67.169.19 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:11842 Archived-At: Hi Andreas, Andreas Rottmann writes: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >> Hi, >> >> Andy Wingo writes: >> >>> On Sun 06 Mar 2011 23:26, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: >>> >>>> Andreas Rottmann writes: >>>> >>>>> The expansion of `define-inlinable' contained an expression, which ma= de >>>>> SRFI-9's `define-record-type' fail in non-toplevel contexts ("definit= ion >>>>> used in expression context"). >>>> >>>> SRFI-9 says =E2=80=9CRecord-type definitions may only occur at top-lev= el=E2=80=9D, and >>>> I=E2=80=99m inclined to stick to it. If we diverge, then people could= write >>>> code thinking it=E2=80=99s portable SRFI-9 code while it=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99t complain. >> There=E2=80=99s a trick for this: if it contains white space, then >> -Wunused-toplevel won=E2=80=99t complain; however, it has to be gen= erated >> deterministically because it can appear in other compilation units, >> so we can=E2=80=99t use =E2=80=98generate-temporaries=E2=80=99 here. >> > I think the attached version of the patch takes your suggestions into > account. Thanks, applied! Ludo=E2=80=99.