Re: compilation pragmas?

[Nala Ginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com>]

Hi Massimiliano!
Could you show some code to elaborate on your idea? It's too vague to
understand by a pure text description.

Thanks!

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 8:43 PM Massimiliano Gubinelli
<m.gubinelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>  I noticed that the Tree IL compiler uses an ad-hoc code to check if some symbol is dynamically defined by GOOPS, intercepting calls to the toplevel-define! function which introduces just a new definition in the current module. In TeXmacs we need some similar dynamics definition mechanism and I get a lot of compiler warnings since the Tree IL analyser does not recognise my definitions. Of course I have the option to redefine  toplevel-define! like GOOPS does, but I’m worried of possible name clashes. Another possibility would be to introduce some “compiler pragma” support in the Tree IL compiler so that it can have annotations which can then be ignored when producing more lower lever code. In this way one could make the mechanism of suppressing particular warnings (e.g. possibly undefined symbols) independent of hacks specific only to certain libraries and provide more orthogonal features. Does it sounds reasonable? I could try to hack it down but I would like to discuss first possible design issues, I’m new to guile compiler.
>
> Best regards,
> Massimiliano Gubinelli
>
>