* [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'
@ 2005-10-21 12:59 Ludovic Courtès
2005-10-23 21:15 ` Kevin Ryde
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2005-10-21 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hi,
It occurred to me that `define-module' is only partially documented, in
particular, `#:re-export', `#:replace' and `#:duplicates' are not
documented at all.
I tried to do my best to document them accurately but note that (i) I'm
not a native English speaker and (ii) from the discussion we've had with
Kevin, it seems that we disagree on the use of `#:replace'. In
particular, I used `(srfi srfi-19)' as an example of when to use
`#:replace' and Kevin may disagree with that. But, well, let's debate
this question. ;-)
Thanks,
Ludovic.
2005-10-21 Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@laas.fr>
* doc/ref/api-modules.texi (Creating Guile Modules): Documented
`#:re-export', `#:export-syntax', `#:re-export-syntax',
`#:replace' and `#:duplicates'.
--- orig/doc/ref/api-modules.texi
+++ mod/doc/ref/api-modules.texi
@@ -240,6 +240,7 @@
module to be accessed, but also selects bindings from it and renames
them to suit the current module's needs. For example:
+@cindex binding renamer
@smalllisp
(use-modules ((ice-9 popen)
:select ((open-pipe . pipe-open) close-pipe)
@@ -305,6 +306,7 @@
@var{spec} can also be of the form:
+@cindex binding renamer
@smalllisp
(MODULE-NAME [:select SELECTION] [:renamer RENAMER])
@end smalllisp
@@ -419,9 +421,152 @@
@item #:export @var{list}
@cindex export
-Export all identifiers in @var{list}, which must be a list of symbols.
+Export all identifiers in @var{list} which must be a list of symbols.
This is equivalent to @code{(export @var{list})} in the module body.
+@item #:re-export @var{list}
+@cindex re-export
+Re-export all identifiers in @var{list} which must be a list of
+symbols. The symbols in @var{list} must be imported by the current
+module from other modules. This is equivalent to @code{(re-export
+@var{list})} in the module body.
+
+@item #:export-syntax @var{list}
+@cindex export-syntax
+Export all identifiers in @var{list} which must be a list of symbols.
+The identifiers in @var{list} must refer to macros (@pxref{Macros})
+defined in the current module. This is equivalent to
+@code{(export-syntax @var{list})} in the module body.
+
+@item #:re-export-syntax @var{list}
+@cindex re-export-syntax
+Re-export all identifiers in @var{list} which must be a list of
+symbols. The symbols in @var{list} must refer to macros imported by
+the current module from other modules. This is equivalent to
+@code{(re-export-syntax @var{list})} in the module body.
+
+@item #:replace @var{list}
+@cindex replace
+@cindex replacing binding
+@cindex overriding binding
+@cindex duplicate binding
+Export all identifiers in @var{list} (a list of symbols) and mark them
+as @dfn{replacing bindings}. In the module user's name space, this
+will have the effect of replacing any binding with the same name that
+is not ``replacing'' itself.
+
+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.
+
+@cindex core binding
+@findex current-time
+One example of this is @code{(srfi srfi-19)} which exports
+@code{current-time} (@pxref{SRFI-19 Time}), thus overriding the core
+binding with the same name (@pxref{Time}). If @code{(srfi srfi-19)}
+was defined as follows:
+
+@smalllisp
+(define-module (srfi srfi-19)
+ #:export (current-time ...))
+@end smalllisp
+
+Then, by default, the user module that performs @code{(use-modules
+(srfi srfi-19))} will get SRFI-19's version of @code{current-time}.
+However, Guile will also issue a warning about the core binding being
+replaced potentially unwillingly:
+
+@smallexample
+guile> (use-modules (srfi srfi-19))
+WARNING: (guile-user): imported module (srfi srfi-19) overrides core binding `current-time'
+@end smallexample
+
+@code{#:replace} is a way to fix this issue by making it explicit that
+the binding-providing module does want to override a core binding:
+
+@smalllisp
+(define-module (srfi srfi-19)
+ #:export (...)
+ #:replace (current-time))
+@end smalllisp
+
+@cindex binding renamer
+In this case, this can be considered harmless since the user of this
+module expects @code{current-time} to refer to SRFI-19's
+implementation, and not to the Guile built-in version. However, note
+that this does not preclude the use of both versions of the binding
+within a given module: this can be done using the @code{#:renamer}
+option of @code{use-modules} (@pxref{Using Guile Modules}).
+
+The @code{#:duplicates} option (below) provides fine-grain control
+about duplicate binding handling on the module-user side.
+
+@item #:duplicates @var{list}
+@cindex duplicate binding handlers
+@cindex duplicate binding
+@cindex overriding binding
+Tell Guile to handle duplicate bindings for the bindings imported by
+the current module according to the policy defined by @var{list}, a
+list of symbols. @var{list} must contain symbols representing a
+duplicate binding handling policy chosen among the following:
+
+@table @code
+@item check
+Raises an error when a binding is imported from more than one place.
+@item warn
+Issue a warning when a binding is imported from more than one place
+and leave the responsibility of actually handling the duplication to
+the next duplicate binding handler.
+@item replace
+When a new binding is imported that has the same name as a previously
+imported binding, then do the following:
+
+@enumerate
+@item
+@cindex replacing binding
+If the old binding was said to be @dfn{replacing} (via the
+@code{#:replace} option) and the new binding is not replacing, the
+keep the old binding.
+@item
+If the old binding was not said to be replacing and the new binding is
+replacing, then replace the old binding with the new one.
+@item
+If neither the old nor the new binding is replacing, then keep the old
+one.
+@end enumerate
+
+@item warn-override-core
+Issue a warning when a core binding is being overwritten and actually
+override the core binding with the new one.
+@item first
+In case of duplicate bindings, the firstly imported binding is always
+the one which is kept.
+@item last
+In case of duplicate bindings, the lastly imported binding is always
+the one which is kept.
+@item noop
+In case of duplicate bindings, leave the responsibility to the next
+duplicate handler.
+@end table
+
+If @var{list} contains more than one symbol, then the duplicate
+binding handlers which appear first will be used first when resolving
+a duplicate binding situation. As mentioned above, some resolution
+policies may explicitly leave the responsibility of handling the
+duplication to the next handler in @var{list}.
+
+@findex default-duplicate-binding-handler
+The default duplicate binding resolution policy is given by the
+@code{default-duplicate-binding-handler} procedure and is currently
+equal to:
+
+@smalllisp
+(replace warn-override-core warn last)
+@end smalllisp
+
@item #:no-backtrace
@cindex no backtrace
Tell Guile not to record information for procedure backtraces when
@@ -449,6 +594,12 @@
@end deffn
@c end
+@deffn syntax re-export variable @dots{}
+Add all @var{variable}s (which must be symbols) to the lits of
+re-exported bindings of the current module. Re-exported bindings must
+be imported by the current module from some other(s) module(s).
+@end deffn
+
@node Module System Reflection
@subsubsection Module System Reflection
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'
2005-10-21 12:59 [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module' Ludovic Courtès
@ 2005-10-23 21:15 ` Kevin Ryde
2005-10-24 8:21 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Ryde @ 2005-10-23 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> +@item #:replace @var{list}
> ...
> +One example of this is @code{(srfi srfi-19)} which exports
> +@code{current-time}
This isn't a great example. See if you can make up something, to
avoid confusing anyone about what srfi-19 actually does or doesn't do.
Extending a core func is probably the normal usage. A completely
different func can be done (at the risk of confusion over what is
actually in use).
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'
2005-10-23 21:15 ` Kevin Ryde
@ 2005-10-24 8:21 ` Ludovic Courtès
2005-10-24 21:29 ` Kevin Ryde
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2005-10-24 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:
> ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>> +@item #:replace @var{list}
>> ...
>> +One example of this is @code{(srfi srfi-19)} which exports
>> +@code{current-time}
>
> This isn't a great example. See if you can make up something, to
> avoid confusing anyone about what srfi-19 actually does or doesn't do.
I knew you wouldn't like it. ;-)
But, well, that really is an example, nothing more. I could choose
whichever module that intentionally overrides a core binding and is
documented to do so.
Actually, I think that what we disagree on is the rationale behind
`#:replace'. My guess (which I wrote in the doc and explained in the
thread about SRFI-34 and SRFI-60) is: `#:replace' is a way for the
module developer to provide a hint about intended and documented binding
replacements.
How would you document it? Maybe we should ask Tom Lord about what his
intent was?
BTW, do you have other griefs against the patch?
Thanks,
Ludovic.
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'
2005-10-24 8:21 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2005-10-24 21:29 ` Kevin Ryde
2005-10-25 7:34 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Ryde @ 2005-10-24 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> Actually, I think that what we disagree on is the rationale behind
> `#:replace'.
No, I'm not bothered about the rationale, I just think "what-if"'s
about builtin stuff is confusing. Create a standalone example and
it's fine.
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'
2005-10-24 21:29 ` Kevin Ryde
@ 2005-10-25 7:34 ` Ludovic Courtès
2005-11-05 21:41 ` Kevin Ryde
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2005-10-25 7:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:
> No, I'm not bothered about the rationale, I just think "what-if"'s
> about builtin stuff is confusing. Create a standalone example and
> it's fine.
The suggestion that I made implicitly was to "fix" srfi-19.scm so that
it "replaces" `current-time' instead of exporting it. Once this is
done, the example I chose will fit well---and using this particular
example removes the need to describe a whole new stand-alone example,
and it's also clearer because real.
I guess if you were not bothered about the rationale you would just
agree that we should use `#:replace' in the modules I pointed out and
you would happily commit the whole thing. ;-)
Thanks,
Ludovic.
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'
2005-10-25 7:34 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2005-11-05 21:41 ` Kevin Ryde
2005-11-07 10:18 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Ryde @ 2005-11-05 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> "replaces" `current-time' instead of exporting it. Once this is
> done,
Well, certainly not until then. I removed this bit I didn't like and
checked-in the rest. Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'
2005-11-05 21:41 ` Kevin Ryde
@ 2005-11-07 10:18 ` Ludovic Courtès
2005-11-17 17:17 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2005-11-07 10:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hi Kevin,
Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:
> ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>> "replaces" `current-time' instead of exporting it. Once this is
>> done,
>
> Well, certainly not until then. I removed this bit I didn't like and
> checked-in the rest. Thanks.
Thanks for checking in the rest. The patch below atomically updates
both SRFI-19 and the manual so that it mentions it as an example. I
notice that you have a tendency to be extremely concise, even when
writing documentation, which I seem to be lacking. ;-)
Thanks,
Ludovic.
doc/ref/ChangeLog
2005-11-07 Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@laas.fr>
* api-modules.texi (Using Guile Modules): Document SRFI-19 as an
example usage of `#:replace'.
srfi/ChangeLog
2005-11-07 Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@laas.fr>
* srfi-19.scm (current-time): Replace it instead of exporting
it.
* srfi-34.scm (raise): Likewise.
* srfi-60.scm (bit-count): Likewise.
\f
--- orig/doc/ref/api-modules.texi
+++ mod/doc/ref/api-modules.texi
@@ -456,17 +456,27 @@
is not also ``replacing''. Normally a replacement results in an
``override'' warning message, @code{#:replace} avoids that.
-This can be used by a module extending a core function in an upwardly
-compatible way, like SRFI-39 @code{current-input-port}
-(@pxref{SRFI-39}).
+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.
+
+
+For instance, SRFI-39 exports @code{current-input-port}
+(@pxref{SRFI-39}) in an upwardly compatible way. SRFI-19, on the
+other hand, exports its own, incompatible version of
+@code{current-time} (@pxref{SRFI-19 Time}), purposefully overriding
+the core binding with the same name (@pxref{Time}).
Or it can be used by a module which is intentionally producing a new
special kind of environment and should override any core or other
bindings already in scope. For example perhaps a logic processing
environment where @code{<=} is an inference instead of a comparison.
-@code{#:duplicates} below provides fine-grain control about duplicate
-binding handling on the module-user side.
+The @code{#:duplicates} option (below) provides fine-grain control
+about duplicate binding handling on the module-user side.
@item #:duplicates @var{list}
@cindex duplicate binding handlers
@@ -524,7 +534,7 @@
@findex default-duplicate-binding-handler
The default duplicate binding resolution policy is given by the
-@code{default-duplicate-binding-handler} procedure, and is
+@code{default-duplicate-binding-handler} procedure, and is equal to:
@smalllisp
(replace warn-override-core warn last)
--- orig/srfi/srfi-19.scm
+++ mod/srfi/srfi-19.scm
@@ -41,13 +41,19 @@
(define-module (srfi srfi-19)
:use-module (srfi srfi-6)
:use-module (srfi srfi-8)
- :use-module (srfi srfi-9))
+ :use-module (srfi srfi-9)
-(begin-deprecated
- ;; Prevent `export' from re-exporting core bindings. This behaviour
- ;; of `export' is deprecated and will disappear in one of the next
- ;; releases.
- (define current-time #f))
+ ;; CURRENT-TIME replaces a core binding. Instead of simply exporting it
+ ;; (which yields an error message by default) or overriding the core
+ ;; binding with `set!' (which would make the original version of
+ ;; CURRENT-TIME unavailable), we mark it as a replacing binding.
+ ;; Consequently, this will silently replace CURRENT-TIME in the module
+ ;; user's namespace.
+ ;;
+ ;; The rationale is that the module user knows about this and can still
+ ;; find means to access the core definition of CURRENT-TIME if need be
+ ;; (e.g. via a renamer).
+ :replace (current-time))
(export ;; Constants
time-duration
@@ -60,7 +66,6 @@
current-date
current-julian-day
current-modified-julian-day
- current-time
time-resolution
;; Time object and accessors
make-time
--- orig/srfi/srfi-34.scm
+++ mod/srfi/srfi-34.scm
@@ -27,8 +27,8 @@
;;; Code:
(define-module (srfi srfi-34)
- #:export (with-exception-handler
- raise)
+ #:export (with-exception-handler)
+ #:replace (raise)
#:export-syntax (guard))
(cond-expand-provide (current-module) '(srfi-34))
--- orig/srfi/srfi-60.scm
+++ mod/srfi/srfi-60.scm
@@ -22,7 +22,6 @@
bitwise-xor
bitwise-not
any-bits-set?
- bit-count
bitwise-if bitwise-merge
log2-binary-factors first-set-bit
bit-set?
@@ -42,7 +41,8 @@
logtest
logcount
logbit?
- ash))
+ ash)
+ #:replace (bit-count))
(load-extension "libguile-srfi-srfi-60-v-1" "scm_init_srfi_60")
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'
2005-11-07 10:18 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2005-11-17 17:17 ` Ludovic Courtès
2005-12-05 12:07 ` Ludovic Courtès
2005-12-07 0:31 ` Marius Vollmer
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2005-11-17 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hi,
ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> doc/ref/ChangeLog
>
> 2005-11-07 Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@laas.fr>
>
> * api-modules.texi (Using Guile Modules): Document SRFI-19 as an
> example usage of `#:replace'.
>
>
> srfi/ChangeLog
>
> 2005-11-07 Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@laas.fr>
>
> * srfi-19.scm (current-time): Replace it instead of exporting
> it.
>
> * srfi-34.scm (raise): Likewise.
>
> * srfi-60.scm (bit-count): Likewise.
Any news regarding this patch?
Thanks,
Ludovic.
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'
2005-11-17 17:17 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2005-12-05 12:07 ` Ludovic Courtès
2005-12-07 0:31 ` Marius Vollmer
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2005-12-05 12:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hi,
ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> doc/ref/ChangeLog
>>
>> 2005-11-07 Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@laas.fr>
>>
>> * api-modules.texi (Using Guile Modules): Document SRFI-19 as an
>> example usage of `#:replace'.
>>
>>
>> srfi/ChangeLog
>>
>> 2005-11-07 Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@laas.fr>
>>
>> * srfi-19.scm (current-time): Replace it instead of exporting
>> it.
>>
>> * srfi-34.scm (raise): Likewise.
>>
>> * srfi-60.scm (bit-count): Likewise.
>
> Any news regarding this patch?
Ping!
Thanks,
Ludovic.
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'
2005-11-17 17:17 ` Ludovic Courtès
2005-12-05 12:07 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2005-12-07 0:31 ` Marius Vollmer
2005-12-07 8:12 ` Ludovic Courtès
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Marius Vollmer @ 2005-12-07 0:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Any news regarding this patch?
I made the following changes. OK?
Index: api-modules.texi
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/guile/guile/guile-core/doc/ref/api-modules.texi,v
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -r1.11 api-modules.texi
--- api-modules.texi 5 Nov 2005 21:38:49 -0000 1.11
+++ api-modules.texi 7 Dec 2005 00:28:42 -0000
@@ -456,17 +456,32 @@
is not also ``replacing''. Normally a replacement results in an
``override'' warning message, @code{#:replace} avoids that.
-This can be used by a module extending a core function in an upwardly
-compatible way, like SRFI-39 @code{current-input-port}
-(@pxref{SRFI-39}).
+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.
-Or it can be used by a module which is intentionally producing a new
-special kind of environment and should override any core or other
-bindings already in scope. For example perhaps a logic processing
-environment where @code{<=} is an inference instead of a comparison.
+For instance, SRFI-39 exports a binding named
+@code{current-input-port} (@pxref{SRFI-39}) that is a function which
+is upwardly compatible with the core @code{current-input-port}
+function. Therefore, SRFI-39 exports its version with
+@code{#:replace}.
-@code{#:duplicates} below provides fine-grain control about duplicate
-binding handling on the module-user side.
+SRFI-19, on the other hand, exports its own version of
+@code{current-time} (@pxref{SRFI-19 Time}) which is not compatible
+with the core @code{current-time} function (@pxref{Time}). Therefore,
+SRFI-19 does not use @code{#:replace}.
+
+The @code{#:replace} option can also be used by a module which is
+intentionally producing a new special kind of environment and should
+override any core or other bindings already in scope. For example
+perhaps a logic processing environment where @code{<=} is an inference
+instead of a comparison.
+
+The @code{#:duplicates} (see below) provides fine-grain control about
+duplicate binding handling on the module-user side.
@item #:duplicates @var{list}
@cindex duplicate binding handlers
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'
2005-12-07 0:31 ` Marius Vollmer
@ 2005-12-07 8:12 ` Ludovic Courtès
2006-02-21 8:42 ` Use of `:replace' in some SRFI modules Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2005-12-07 8:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: guile-devel
Hi,
Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.de> writes:
> I made the following changes. OK?
Looks perfect to me!
But what about the rest of the patch, namely:
> 2005-11-07 Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@laas.fr>
>
> * srfi-19.scm (current-time): Replace it instead of exporting
> it.
>
> * srfi-34.scm (raise): Likewise.
>
> * srfi-60.scm (bit-count): Likewise.
Thanks,
Ludovic.
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Use of `:replace' in some SRFI modules
2005-12-07 8:12 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2006-02-21 8:42 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2006-02-21 8:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: guile-devel
Hi,
I'm reviving this old thread that deals with `:replace' because it seems
that Marius had lost its track. ;-)
ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.de> writes:
>
>> I made the following changes. OK?
>
> Looks perfect to me!
>
> But what about the rest of the patch, namely:
>
>> 2005-11-07 Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@laas.fr>
>>
>> * srfi-19.scm (current-time): Replace it instead of exporting
>> it.
>>
>> * srfi-34.scm (raise): Likewise.
>>
>> * srfi-60.scm (bit-count): Likewise.
Is it an acceptable change?
Thanks,
Ludovic.
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-02-21 8:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-10-21 12:59 [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module' Ludovic Courtès
2005-10-23 21:15 ` Kevin Ryde
2005-10-24 8:21 ` Ludovic Courtès
2005-10-24 21:29 ` Kevin Ryde
2005-10-25 7:34 ` Ludovic Courtès
2005-11-05 21:41 ` Kevin Ryde
2005-11-07 10:18 ` Ludovic Courtès
2005-11-17 17:17 ` Ludovic Courtès
2005-12-05 12:07 ` Ludovic Courtès
2005-12-07 0:31 ` Marius Vollmer
2005-12-07 8:12 ` Ludovic Courtès
2006-02-21 8:42 ` Use of `:replace' in some SRFI modules 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).