From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: New module system option :duplicates Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:56:23 -0600 Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87zno7w1xk.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> References: <87ptp3b5ak.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <87el5jb3gp.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1047056230 5138 80.91.224.249 (7 Mar 2003 16:57:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:57:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 07 17:57:07 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18rL9f-0001KU-00 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 17:57:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18rLAC-0007EJ-07 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:57:40 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18rL9r-0007Co-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:57:19 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18rL9p-0007Bc-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:57:18 -0500 Original-Received: from dsl093-098-016.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.98.16] helo=defaultvalue.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18rL8y-0006vR-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:56:24 -0500 Original-Received: from raven.i.defaultvalue.org (raven.i.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F06A3C6; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:56:23 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by raven.i.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 79C0AD9F19; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:56:23 -0600 (CST) Original-To: Marius Vollmer In-Reply-To: <87el5jb3gp.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> (Marius Vollmer's message of "07 Mar 2003 16:28:54 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) Original-cc: guile-devel@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:2053 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:2053 Marius Vollmer writes: > When the two generics have non-overlapping type signatures for their > signatures, all is well. But you can't be sure about this. You > need to be made aware that there is a collision/merging going on and > then you can declare that this specific merge is OK. That's what I just thought about too. i.e. I'd guess that merging (open ) and (open ) would be just fine, but what about merging (open ) from module-1 with (open ) from module-2? Personally, I'd probably want to see an error in the latter case, but the question is in general, how would a "conflict" be defined? -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org Previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel