* empty default duplicates handler
@ 2007-08-21 22:07 Kevin Ryde
2007-08-22 8:24 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Ryde @ 2007-08-21 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guile-devel
Is it supposed to work to set the default duplicates handling to an
empty list? Eg. foo.scm containing
(define-module (foo)
#:duplicates ()
#:use-module (srfi srfi-1))
(pk map)
It seems to work in 1.8, but in the head it's giving
=> Unbound variable: map
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?
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: empty default duplicates handler
2007-08-21 22:07 empty default duplicates handler Kevin Ryde
@ 2007-08-22 8:24 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2007-08-22 8:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Ryde; +Cc: guile-devel
Hi,
Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-08-22 8:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-08-21 22:07 empty default duplicates handler Kevin Ryde
2007-08-22 8:24 ` Ludovic Courtès
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).