Re: [PATCH] SRFI-34, SRFI-60 and core bindings

[ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès)]

Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.de> writes:

> These two 'raise' funtions are very different: one raises a Unix
> signal, the other raises an exception.  So I'd say the warning is OK.

[...]

> The same is true for 'bit-count' as Kevin pointed out. 

I agree that these are way different functions, but I disagree about the
remedy.  You say that a warning is fine precisely because these are
different functions.  I say that I rarely type something like
`(use-modules (srfi srfi-60))' _inadvertently_ in a Scheme file.
Additionally, the _documentation_ of that module already warned me about
the introduction of a different `bit-count' procedure, so if something
goes wrong, it's all my fault.  ;-)

See also:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2005-10/msg00101.html .

> If you don't want to warning, you can define your own way of handling
> duplicates.  See the NEWS file for docs about the options.

Precisely, you said you were ok to apply the following documentation
yesterday:

  This is useful for modules that export bindings that have the same
  name as core bindings.  @code{#:replace}, in a sense, lets Guile know
  that the module @emph{purposefully} replaces a core binding.  It is
  important to note, however, that this binding replacement is confined
  to the name space of the module user.  In other words, the value of the
  core binding in question remains unchanged for other modules.

So, do we agree on what `#:replace' is for?  :-)

As a matter of fact, this facility had remained undocumented for years
and its original author is no longer here (I think) to explain the
rationale behind it.

Thanks,
Ludovic.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel