From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: empty default duplicates handler Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:24:07 +0200 Organization: LAAS-CNRS Message-ID: <87k5rovuxk.fsf@laas.fr> References: <87sl6c4k51.fsf@zip.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1187770975 22039 80.91.229.12 (22 Aug 2007 08:22:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:22:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Kevin Ryde Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 22 10:22:53 2007 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 4.50) id 1INlUI-00014u-P3 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:22:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INlUI-0000Bl-6q for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:22:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1INlUD-00009h-AV for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:22:45 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1INlUC-000097-Rk for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:22:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INlUC-00008z-K6 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:22:44 -0400 Original-Received: from laas.laas.fr ([140.93.0.15]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1INlUC-0007u7-5n for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:22:44 -0400 Original-Received: from messiaen.laas.fr (messiaen [IPv6:2001:660:6602:0:230:65ff:fed4:9d20]) by laas.laas.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l7M8MfY6021876; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:22:41 +0200 (MEST) Original-Received: by messiaen.laas.fr (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:24:07 +0200 X-URL: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 5 Fructidor an 215 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEB1F5364 X-PGP-Key: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu Mail-Followup-To: Kevin Ryde , guile-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <87sl6c4k51.fsf@zip.com.au> (Kevin Ryde's message of "Wed\, 22 Aug 2007 08\:07\:06 +1000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: 0.306 () MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,NO_RELAYS X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang at CNRS-LAAS on IPv6:2001:660:6602::2 X-Detected-Kernel: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:6731 Archived-At: Hi, Kevin Ryde writes: > Is it supposed to work to set the default duplicates handling to an > empty list? Why not, but we need to define the semantics. > It seems to work in 1.8, but in the head it's giving > > => Unbound variable: map In `resolve_duplicate_binding ()', we could initialize RESULT to VAR2, for instance (which would behave like `last', I think). > I had this in my program as a global setting > > (default-duplicate-binding-handler '()) > > Either way if empty isn't allowed it'd be nice to throw an error > immediately, the same as a bogus handler name symbol does. > > The effect I wanted was no work at all done for duplicates checking. > Modules can override/extend the core by shadowing, but I'm confident > there's no clashes between my modules and don't want time spent looking > at that. Or is '(last) the policy I should be asking for to get that > non-checking effect? I think we could do the above change and document that `()' is equivalent to `(last)'. What do you think? Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel