Re: Scmutils in guile-2.0

[Mikael Djurfeldt <mikael@djurfeldt.com>]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> Mikael Djurfeldt <mikael@djurfeldt.com> skribis:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>> +(cond-expand (guile-2
>>>> +           (define-syntax define-integrable
>>>> +             (syntax-rules ()
>>>> +               ((_ form body ...) (define form body ...)))))
>>>
>>> You can actually use ‘define-inlinable’ here (info "(guile) Inlinable
>>> Procedures").
>>
>> Sorry, I'm lost.
>>
>> Doesn't define-inlinable define a procedure?
>
> It does, but it’s equivalent to what some implementations call
> ‘define-integrable’.

Ludovic---sorry, I'm being dense.  You see, I just by reflex
interpreted "integrable" as a mathematical term.  But I should have
reacted against this being defined as a compatibility measure.

What you are saying is that I should use define-inlinable instead of
define in the definition of define-integrable, right?

I didn't know about the common existence of "define-integrable" in
other implementations!  Thanks you!