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: Syntax checks Date: 14 Apr 2002 20:18:09 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87wuvannz2.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> References: <02041313105800.10649@locke.free-expression.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1018808119 2338 127.0.0.1 (14 Apr 2002 18:15:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:15:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Dirk Herrmann , Guile Development List Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16woX0-0000bb-00 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 20:15:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16woWr-0002vm-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 14:15:09 -0400 Original-Received: from dialin.speedway42.dip177.dokom.de ([195.138.42.177] helo=zagadka.ping.de) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16woWg-0002sq-00 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 14:14:58 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 4621 invoked by uid 1000); 14 Apr 2002 18:18:09 -0000 Original-To: Lynn Winebarger In-Reply-To: <02041313105800.10649@locke.free-expression.org> Original-Lines: 13 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: 2.0.9 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:377 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:377 Lynn Winebarger writes: > Maybe there should be some way (for development purposes) to > re-expand macros, but I don't believe it should be the default semantics > - or even that it should supported in normal use (i.e. without an evaluator > option being flipped on somewhere). In particular, any compiler generated > code should not be required to support it without specially requesting that > support. I say we should support it by making sure reloading of files (source or compiled) behaves sanely in general. People who want their changed macro definitions to take effect can then reload or recompile the affected code. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel