From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Should an enclosing let keep the compiler from handling define-module? Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 20:31:06 -0500 Message-ID: <87zhknt6zp.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> References: <875znrmp0p.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <87tvav8p5c.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="112810"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 06 03:31:34 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1huoK5-000TFV-B3 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 03:31:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58034 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1huoK2-0006c4-Nm for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 21:31:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45504) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1huoJj-0006bk-JF for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 21:31:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1huoJi-0005Og-If for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 21:31:11 -0400 Original-Received: from defaultvalue.org ([45.33.119.55]:38178) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1huoJg-0005Mm-VK for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 21:31:09 -0400 Original-Received: from trouble.defaultvalue.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: rlb@defaultvalue.org) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0759F203DC; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 20:31:07 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by trouble.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 46A8D14E066; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 20:31:06 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <87tvav8p5c.fsf@netris.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 45.33.119.55 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:20031 Archived-At: Mark H Weaver writes: > It seems misguided to try to use Scheme code to temporarily switch the > current language to Scheme. Doesn't this approach presuppose that > Scheme is already the current language? Or one that's "sufficiently similar". I think in part I was originally confused because I didn't understand say --language very well (or what changing the language actually affected), and in the end I realized (I think) that it's a fairly blunt instrument with fairly broad effects, and so I reworked what I was doing to never explicitly change the current language, i.e. to rely on compile #:from #:to and load-compiled-file, etc. So if this doesn't seem like any real issue as far as Guile is concerned right now, feel free to disregard. And thanks for the response. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4