From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: rain1@openmailbox.org Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: include bug in guile Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:55:44 +0100 Message-ID: References: <314fdd510b24fc4580a47e0da868d3ba@openmailbox.org> <7EDD3134-9BE2-4A4F-A8D5-C0617DD17674@jpl.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1459431272 28813 80.91.229.3 (31 Mar 2016 13:34:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:34:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: "Wette, Matthew R (3441)" Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 31 15:34:31 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1alck2-000814-KL for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:34:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60478 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alck2-0002jQ-21 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:34:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37806) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alcju-0002jF-OX for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:34:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alcjq-0007VE-7H for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:34:22 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp8.openmailbox.org ([62.4.1.42]:51238) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alcjp-0007Sm-Uy for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:34:18 -0400 Original-Received: by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix, from userid 1004) id A104B2AC5F77; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 14:55:54 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=openmailbox.org; s=openmailbox; t=1459428954; bh=flfI/Q+Z6JIX7hx0L+VcbAonQ4ZuOOSdqVWmNnuzD5s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=F5cNUk6TAoJLBdziFDk3z5kA4BZWlxjaMyo6HS8fu06toYkAyP/4W0P7u3hZfmR4e N/OWD1rygat8K5grPcCywXh+dlQqYirdhMXHIy98j5uvRktX7ae2d/QmgC8YMp+5pL 3rRe8YzkU3hc3+x+ze51ZUMtSMpGhDiuWGVPBW/4= Original-Received: from www.openmailbox.org (openmailbox-b1 [10.91.69.218]) by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D792A2AC5DF6; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 14:55:44 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: X-Sender: rain1@openmailbox.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.6 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 62.4.1.42 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:18263 Archived-At: On 2016-03-31 13:39, Wette, Matthew R (3441) wrote: >> On Mar 29, 2016, at 6:05 PM, Wette, Matthew R (3441) >> wrote: >>=20 >>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 10:16 AM, rain1@openmailbox.org wrote: >>>=20 >>> I think this is a bug in guile relating to "include": >>>=20 >>> a.scm: (define a 1) >>> b.scm: (include "a.scm") (display a) (newline) >>>=20 >>> guile -l b.scm # prints 1 >>>=20 >>> now update >>> a.scm: (define a 2) >>>=20 >>> guile -l b.scm # still prints 1 >>=20 >> I have noticed this behavior and have learned to live with it. Given >> the following from the Guile Reference manual (2.0.11), I think it >> is not considered a bug. >>=20 >> "On the other hand, include does have all the disadvantages of early >> binding: once the code with the include is compiled, no change to >> the included file is reflected in the future behavior of the >> including form.=E2=80=9D > And I will add that an implementation that checked all includes would > have to carry a tree of source dependencies for each binary .go file. > The alternative seems unattractive to me so I am happy to live with > the current implementation. =E2=80=94 Matt I think you are right and this can't be considered a bug, even though it=20 may introduce bugs in programming if used wrong. wingo mentioned to me that LOAD can be used as an alternative to INCLUDE=20 if we want late binding instead of early. Thanks!