From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: syntax-local-binding Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:26:53 +0100 Message-ID: <87d3a9mjcy.fsf@pobox.com> References: <874nvw99za.fsf@pobox.com> <87zkdo7uf5.fsf@pobox.com> <87sjjbvs12.fsf@pobox.com> <87sjjaunme.fsf@netris.org> <87r4yurruv.fsf@pobox.com> <87obtyuj4k.fsf@netris.org> <871uqqpfoo.fsf@pobox.com> <87hazmrv15.fsf@netris.org> <87zkdem58t.fsf@pobox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1327404437 19971 80.91.229.12 (24 Jan 2012 11:27:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:27:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Peter TB Brett Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 24 12:27:10 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RpeWs-0007np-4E for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:27:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54584 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RpeWr-0006ZO-KV for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:27:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56874) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RpeWl-0006Z6-Sb for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:27:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RpeWg-0002WG-SH for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:27:03 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:43910 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RpeWg-0002WB-OV for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:26:58 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29BD7C99; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:26:57 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=9Q+/+hNYZfjkHt29SENGnemJi3w=; b=mo6PC/ TCHMolYgOJhW/iGloevSvXY2CLrYB5tFXDZOd/JLnaJ4Hy5K9ik5SVqsfA637spd HjrLD+NT+eZ920stYubHBp8RltSL5sMunEvNX62ykJpHTr5+V73FMxNFXfkHJLpB sk+qoygGa8mRGOJLzVfR6nagExYgFNRHJKIr4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=SmFo8uUHYDOInrDrZ0SViXre9gOKL+hs HLS9ThqSU8EzL6NNkNR3rLgUSp9UPCiZODa9BOIv8e0Smoh37Z9uh/PsSsA9XfOq Aq0wyCAKeCkAh9z7hAln/LgHoL7nXEsX/AtDdjaUqcFBEbp+42fPkB/CBAzUwh2i 6uR42ZAVslc= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD437C97; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:26:57 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [90.163.36.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B6177C96; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:26:57 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Peter TB Brett's message of "Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:30:40 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 53443036-467E-11E1-98D4-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:13657 Archived-At: On Tue 24 Jan 2012 11:30, Peter TB Brett writes: > It seems pretty clear to me that the only (debatable) downside to using > Mark's implementation is that some definitions end up in the "wrong" > module, while your implementation has several potentially *major* > problems (including the necessity of providing universally unique > gensyms) Let's be clear here: the universally-unique gensym issue is something that Guile *already* has, in version 2.0.0, 2.0.1, etc. Regards, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/