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: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:20:13 +0100 (CET) Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <0211060216541H.07034@locke.free-expression.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1036604574 23793 80.91.224.249 (6 Nov 2002 17:42:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 17:42:54 +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 189UBO-000669-00 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:41:39 +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 189UAz-0005Dn-00; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:41:13 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 189Tu2-0000D3-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:23:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 189Tty-0000Cb-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:23:41 -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 189Tqq-0007Jk-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:20:25 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (dirk@localhost) by sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA16096; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:20:13 +0100 (CET) Original-To: Lynn Winebarger In-Reply-To: <0211060216541H.07034@locke.free-expression.org> 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:1651 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1651 On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Lynn Winebarger wrote: > On Wednesday 06 November 2002 01:54, Dirk Herrmann wrote: > > On 4 Nov 2002, Marius Vollmer wrote: > > > > > Dirk Herrmann writes: > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > No, since 'define' is a syntactic keyword... which is probably not the > > > reason you were expecting, right? > > > > It is exactly the reason. The question is, how should guile react here? > > "Syntax error: invalid use of define" or "Syntax error: invalid define form"? I think this is not general enough. It works for the special case of define, but the point is not, that the define form is broken, but that a macro is used as an argument to something else. Consider (call-foo define) The point that we have to decide is, whether such a form is reported as a syntax error during memoization, or whether we just don't dereference the macro during memoization and let the executor do the lookup. The second choice will allow that a new definition of the macro may be provided in the meantime. For example: (define (foo) (call-foo and)) (define and #t) (foo) Should this be possible? If so, then can't signal an error _during_memoization_ if a macro is used at some illegal place. Best regards, Dirk _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel