From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
To: guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement `the-environment' and `local-eval' in evaluator
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:26:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87fwgk384t.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: we1mehw4pqep.fsf@ssclt001.ee.surrey.ac.uk
Peter TB Brett <peter@peter-b.co.uk> writes:
> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> * I still wouldn't be surprised if `local-eval' does the wrong thing if
>>> (current-module) is different from what it was when the associated
>>> `primitive-eval' was called.
>>
>> Before anyone even _defines_ what the "right thing" would be, there is
>> little point in worrying about this. I don't think that `local-eval'
>> 1.8 documented any behavior for this case (well, it did not document any
>> behavior for a lot of cases).
>>
>> So it probably makes sense to look afterwards what will happen without
>> special precautions, and unless that is spectacularly useless or
>> inconsistent, call it the "right thing" by definition.
>
> Maybe it makes even more sense (at this stage) to state that the
> behaviour in this case is undefined?
In my opinion it does not make sense at this stage to state anything.
Declaring the behavior as being undefined is premature when further work
might discover that it makes eminent sense to define it in a particular
way.
--
David Kastrup
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-16 14:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-03 15:45 Anything better for delayed lexical evaluation than (lambda () ...)? David Kastrup
2011-12-03 16:44 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-06 14:55 ` Thien-Thi Nguyen
2011-12-06 15:45 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-06 19:50 ` Marco Maggi
2011-12-11 9:33 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-11 9:51 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-12 5:21 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-12 6:47 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-12 18:29 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-12 19:56 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-12 20:39 ` rixed
2011-12-12 21:02 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-12 21:58 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-12 21:40 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-12 21:50 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 9:02 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 13:05 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 13:56 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 14:34 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 15:27 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 15:48 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 16:08 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 16:27 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 16:54 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 18:58 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 22:23 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 17:28 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-13 18:49 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 19:15 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-13 23:00 ` Noah Lavine
2011-12-13 23:16 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 23:44 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 23:39 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 23:45 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 10:15 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-14 10:32 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 0:30 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 8:16 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 0:42 ` Noah Lavine
2011-12-14 0:47 ` Noah Lavine
2011-12-14 1:30 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 7:50 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 8:48 ` [PATCH] Implement `capture-lexical-environment' in evaluator Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 9:08 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 9:36 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-16 9:21 ` [PATCH] Implement `the-environment' and `local-eval' " Mark H Weaver
2011-12-16 9:32 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-16 14:00 ` Peter TB Brett
2011-12-16 14:26 ` David Kastrup [this message]
2011-12-16 15:27 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-16 16:01 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-16 17:44 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-16 19:12 ` Mark H Weaver
2012-01-07 1:26 ` Andy Wingo
2012-01-07 17:30 ` Mark H Weaver
2012-01-07 1:18 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-16 16:59 ` Hans Aberg
2011-12-14 10:08 ` Anything better for delayed lexical evaluation than (lambda () ...)? Andy Wingo
2011-12-14 10:27 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 13:35 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-14 15:21 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 15:55 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-14 17:26 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 18:23 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 18:38 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 19:14 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 19:44 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 22:56 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-14 11:03 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 11:18 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 13:31 ` Noah Lavine
2011-12-14 21:03 ` Mark H Weaver
2011-12-14 22:12 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 22:24 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 22:55 ` Andy Wingo
2011-12-13 16:24 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 15:52 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-13 11:14 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 13:52 ` Ludovic Courtès
2011-12-14 14:27 ` David Kastrup
2011-12-14 21:30 ` Ludovic Courtès
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87fwgk384t.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org \
--to=dak@gnu.org \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).