From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dirk Herrmann Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: define and modules Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 22:32:41 +0100 (CET) Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87smyiboyo.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 1036446444 18325 80.91.224.249 (4 Nov 2002 21:47:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 21:47:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org 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 188p46-0004lH-00 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2002 22:47:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 188p21-0000lq-00; Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:45:13 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 188oq4-0004v2-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:32:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 188oq2-0004ua-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:32:51 -0500 Original-Received: from sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de ([134.169.132.52]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 188oq1-0004to-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:32:49 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (dirk@localhost) by sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA20703; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 22:32:41 +0100 (CET) Original-To: Marius Vollmer In-Reply-To: <87smyiboyo.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1640 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1640 On 3 Nov 2002, Marius Vollmer wrote: > Dirk Herrmann writes: > > > Great. However, currently, guile's handling of defines is buggy or at > > least in contrast to R5RS. Changing it would break existing code as shown > > in the following two examples: > > I see. I'd say we don't need to slavishly follow R5RS here since R5RS > does not talk about modules. And we don't need to keep our current, > mostly accidental semantics either. So there is opportunity to do the > Right Thing... OK, talking about the right thing: How should guile react to the following code: (define define-private define) This is done in boot9.scm. Should this be allowed? Best regards, Dirk Herrmann _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel