From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't mix definitions and expressions in SRFI-9 Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 11:52:57 +0100 Message-ID: References: <8762rwqk2p.fsf@gmx.at> <87mxl77un3.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1299495699 18075 80.91.229.12 (7 Mar 2011 11:01:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:01:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 07 12:01:35 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PwYBn-0003zQ-3n for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:01:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60590 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PwY3m-0008SF-97 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 05:53:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50588 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PwY3i-0008Qz-18 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 05:53:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PwY3f-00035n-N2 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 05:53:01 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:36752 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PwY3f-00035e-Gb; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 05:52:59 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DDF030AF; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 05:54:25 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=zeHJzkb9X58L adN5F+eov9Bosp0=; b=gi4sths2C5SQeMA5Zqp6kdPSezFFzymhYAowfOpqTLfK iHYahI2E+5nMfI4VCxwtixxU8SRTFjtcNUX9Judhti4MKIq5Z/p4XclNvAmHpUMU 872Apdx6IQ97UPSJ+pSdiLiSsx9wM5xjL3SgVUW7fy0MIyv48CjEIjoRuoqNvyA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=OY+I7t +QYf283i+CEP1mtCEX8PCYD7zeGCMyE+mD7QSNhVyGjnQ4mLuhOaGQI0kTNZ0RC5 Id9jkPp/JgKcRJHOajIexGS0d/xzOym42gwF4kK+MQy0vDGK2tzVgIhe+oGc9JtL x3dC5jorDMwM66CSYXVWqMjdaXGatVIyiVBgs= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFF630AE; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 05:54:24 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C4CF30AB; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 05:54:21 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87mxl77un3.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:26:40 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 437DD55E-48A9-11E0-A4D4-AF401E47CF6F-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 64.74.157.62 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:11808 Archived-At: On Sun 06 Mar 2011 23:26, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Andreas Rottmann writes: > >> The expansion of `define-inlinable' contained an expression, which made >> SRFI-9's `define-record-type' fail in non-toplevel contexts ("definition >> used in expression context"). > > SRFI-9 says =E2=80=9CRecord-type definitions may only occur at top-level= =E2=80=9D, and > I=E2=80=99m inclined to stick to it. If we diverge, then people could wr= ite > code thinking it=E2=80=99s portable SRFI-9 code while it=E2=80=99s not. Does anyone actually care about this? We provide many compatible extensions to standard interfaces. It seems like this would be an "unnecessary restriction which makes `let-record-type' seem necessary". Especially given that the patch actually removes an unused line :) Regards, Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/