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: [PATCH] SRFI-34, SRFI-60 and core bindings Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:10:51 +0100 Organization: LAAS-CNRS Message-ID: <87r78pxln8.fsf@laas.fr> References: <87zmp4mj1f.fsf@laas.fr> <871x0p4xpf.fsf@zagadka.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1133961267 14079 80.91.229.2 (7 Dec 2005 13:14:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 13:14:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 07 14:14:19 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ejz7i-0000jb-87 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:14:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ejz7v-0008Gs-RX for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 08:14:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EjwNW-0008Kp-FL for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 05:18:27 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EjwLf-00085S-6r for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 05:16:37 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EjwHp-0007iB-O7 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 05:12:34 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.93.0.15] (helo=laas.laas.fr) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1EjwId-0000gc-Mk for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 05:13:24 -0500 Original-Received: by laas.laas.fr (8.13.1/8.13.4) with SMTP id jB7ACFvN021629; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:12:15 +0100 (CET) Original-To: Marius Vollmer X-URL: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 17 Frimaire an 214 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: Marius Vollmer , guile-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <871x0p4xpf.fsf@zagadka.de> (Marius Vollmer's message of "Wed, 07 Dec 2005 01:23:08 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang at CNRS-LAAS 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:5482 Archived-At: Marius Vollmer 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