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: primitive-load returning result of last evaluation? Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:27:44 +0200 (MEST) Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87u1q3q3xg.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019511037 20910 127.0.0.1 (22 Apr 2002 21:30:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:30:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ttn@glug.org, a.rottmann@gmx.at, guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16zlOO-0005R9-00 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:30:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16zlNz-0007B5-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:30:11 -0400 Original-Received: from marvin.ida.ing.tu-bs.de ([134.169.132.60]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16zlLs-00071d-00 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:28:00 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (dirk@localhost) by marvin.ida.ing.tu-bs.de (8.11.0/8.11.0/SuSE Linux 8.11.0-0.4) with ESMTP id g3MLRid23780; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:27:44 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: marvin.ida.ing.tu-bs.de: dirk owned process doing -bs Original-To: Rob Browning In-Reply-To: <87u1q3q3xg.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 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:459 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:459 On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Rob Browning wrote: > Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > > > i think this is a reasonable change, but perhaps there is a good > > reason this hasn't been done since return value was fixed in 1996-09 > > (libguile/load.c 1.4). > > I'd be hesitant to change this too until we've had a chance to > consider the issue carefully. I can't think of anything offhand that > would make this a bad idea, but it's not functionality we could easily > rescind once we provide it, and I have this nagging feeling there > might be some problem I'm not thinking of... I can't think of any problems, except that the standard 'load itself does not provide a return value. And, implementing a load* that returns a value is quite simple. However, in order to spare people some work (I once also needed such a load function), we should provide it, but, I'd rather go for a standard implementation and provide such extensions as optional packages. Best regards Dirk Herrmann _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel