From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Vollmer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: illegal uses of define in guile Date: 03 Nov 2002 17:28:35 +0100 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87of96boss.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> References: <20021021100437.GB8559@www> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1036341931 10845 80.91.224.249 (3 Nov 2002 16:45:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 16:45:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Dirk Herrmann , guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 188NsP-0002om-00 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2002 17:45:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 188Nql-0000uZ-00; Sun, 03 Nov 2002 11:43:47 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 188Nc0-0008DZ-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Nov 2002 11:28:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 188Nbx-0008Cr-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Nov 2002 11:28:31 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.dokom.net ([195.253.8.218]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 188Nbx-0008Ck-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Nov 2002 11:28:29 -0500 Original-Received: from dialin.speedway42.dip72.dokom.de ([195.138.42.72] helo=zagadka.ping.de ident=qmailr) by mail.dokom.net with smtp (Exim 3.32 #2) id 188Nci-00088t-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Nov 2002 17:29:16 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 11127 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Nov 2002 16:28:35 -0000 Original-To: tomas@fabula.de In-Reply-To: <20021021100437.GB8559@www> Original-Lines: 32 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1633 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1633 tomas@fabula.de writes: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 05:22:03PM +0200, Dirk Herrmann wrote: > > [...] > > > Summarized: > > * The compiler must be able to emit code that allows references to > > identifiers to be looked up at use time (that is, in the executor). > > * The executor must be able to handle definitions. > > * Once a binding has been referenced, the binding should not change. > > Is this going to be enforced at run time somehow (says he with a > little evil grin) -- or does a change on an once-referenced binding > result in undefined behaviour? It will be enforced at run-time (according to my current plan, anyway, see workbook/compiler/new-model.text), simply by not allowing changes to modules that would change the outcome of lookups. That is, you can not remove bindings, or redirect them. > In the first case there could be a hook for those interested in > `fixing' the memoization. Then you would have the best of both > worlds -- paying an extra penalty if you decide to do quirky > things. In the second case, well... When you do quirky things, would be OK to require you to reload code that is affected by this? Guile can help by offering a list of files that would need to be reloaded. -- GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel