Re: Document top-level pseudo-hygiene

[Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>]

Hi :)

On Mon 27 Jan 2014 05:50, Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:

> "Andy Wingo" <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>> commit 03dfed840b377a72191b6f125c106fdfd9e90a21
>> Author: Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>
>> Date:   Fri Jan 24 12:34:26 2014 +0100
>>
>>     Document top-level pseudo-hygiene
>>     
>>     * doc/ref/api-macros.texi (Hygiene and the Top-Level): Add a section
>>       documenting our pseudo-hygienic top-level names.
>
> As I've said before, I strenuously object to these novel semantics that
> you've invented.  I believe this would be an ugly wart on Guile that we
> would have to support indefinitely, in violation of the standards,
> because its existence would encourage people to write code that depends
> upon it.

I think the hyperbole is a bit out of place.  All semantics are invented
and novel at some point; that is not an argument against a thing.  But
you object; OK.

> Now, to reduce the danger that a library author might unwittingly make
> the mistake you're (rightly) worried about, I suggest that we rig the
> compiler to issue a warning whenever an introduced toplevel identifier
> crosses a module boundary.

I don't think we know this information.  WDYT about warning when
residualizing a fresh toplevel?  Or even raising an error?  Perhaps one
could configure this somehow.

I certainly do not want any fresh toplevels to be residualized within
Guile proper, and I expect the same goes for other projects as well.
Fresh toplevels are just a novel semantic some people invented that I
strenuously object to ;-)

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/