From: Dirk Herrmann <dirk@sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de>
Cc: Gary Houston <ghouston@arglist.com>,
guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: macros, procedure->macro
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:23:22 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10207082202540.12632-100000@sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87n0t376c9.fsf@zagadka.ping.de>
On 7 Jul 2002, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> Dirk Herrmann <dirk@sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de> writes:
>
> > So what is so special about the uses of procedure->macro at the places
> > above?
> >
> > [checking for redefinitions.]
>
> We need to restrict this redefining behavior of 'define-class' et all
> to the top-level. Local class definitions should not redefine classes
> outside of their scope (that would lead to a funny version of dynamic
> scoping of classes, eew), and redefinitions directly in one scope
> should be an error, just like any other definitions.
OK, I have changed the definitions of define-generic and define-accessor
to only show their re-defining behaviour if executed on top-level. I also
changed all three (define-class, define-generic and define-accessor) to
use mmacros, which then would not change their behaviour at all. Finally,
I changed define-class in stklos.scm to also use a mmacro, which is also
safe if no other 'define-class' code uses macros any more.
That means, after I have checked these changes in, guile itself will be
clean of using the built-in so called "macros", which are not really
macros in the scheme sense.
> Redefinitions on the top-level do make sense and can be supported by a
> normal macro via explicit module manipulations, i.e.
[...]
I am not sure I like the way, goops is based on names instead of objects
at a lot of places. For example, it is not possible to do the following:
(use-modules (oop goops))
(define-generic G)
(define (get-generic) G)
(define-class <foo> () (x #:accessor (get-generic)))
because instead of a value, define-class expects a symbol after the
#:accessor keyword.
Automatic redefinition of classes is IMO a critical issue:
Redefinition of a class means to change the structure of all objects
of the class that already exist. This should be a well considered
step and should not happen automatically (I am not even sure whether
it is a good idea at all). It is not too inconvenient to request the user
to call class-redefinition instead of define-class. It will inhibit
accidential redefinitions.
Just my opinion...
Best regards
Dirk Herrmann
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
next parent reply other threads:[~2002-07-08 20:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <87n0t376c9.fsf@zagadka.ping.de>
2002-07-08 20:23 ` Dirk Herrmann [this message]
2002-07-09 18:13 ` macros, procedure->macro Marius Vollmer
2002-07-10 21:54 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-07-13 9:53 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-07-13 18:38 ` Marius Vollmer
[not found] <m3lm8e5o69.fsf@laruns.ossau.uklinux.net>
2002-07-14 21:35 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-07-15 20:48 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-07-15 22:42 ` Neil Jerram
2002-07-16 22:00 ` Dirk Herrmann
[not found] <200207012220.PAA08054@onyx.he.net>
2002-07-03 20:08 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-07-04 20:16 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-07-07 18:15 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-07-01 19:56 Dirk Herrmann
2002-07-01 21:30 ` Rob Browning
2002-07-03 20:24 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-07-01 22:14 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-07-03 20:11 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-07-07 17:54 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-07-08 20:31 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-07-09 18:22 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-07-10 5:21 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-07-10 19:31 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-07-10 19:57 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-07-10 20:08 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-07-01 22:17 ` Gary Houston
2002-07-09 21:16 ` Neil Jerram
2002-07-10 5:46 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-07-10 10:15 ` Neil Jerram
2002-07-10 20:03 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-07-13 0:09 ` Neil Jerram
2002-07-13 2:36 ` Clinton Ebadi
2002-07-14 15:23 ` Neil Jerram
2002-07-14 16:26 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-07-15 6:03 ` Rob Browning
2002-07-13 6:53 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-07-14 15:23 ` Neil Jerram
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.GSO.4.05.10207082202540.12632-100000@sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de \
--to=dirk@sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de \
--cc=ghouston@arglist.com \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=guile-user@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).