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 23:27:32 +0100 (CET) Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1036622892 19751 80.91.224.249 (6 Nov 2002 22:48:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 22:48:12 +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 189Yxh-00056t-00 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:47:49 +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 189Yxu-0004Qd-00; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 17:48:02 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 189YeB-0004xB-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 17:27:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 189Ye9-0004x0-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 17:27:38 -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 189Ye8-0004un-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 17:27:37 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (dirk@localhost) by sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA16600; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:27:32 +0100 (CET) Original-To: Marius Vollmer In-Reply-To: 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:1653 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1653 On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, 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? And, another question, how should the code in boot9.scm be changed? I don't know why the definition was done at all, but I am not really sure if there is some module-system trick behind it. Best regards, Dirk _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel