From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Peter TB Brett Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement `the-environment' and `local-eval' in evaluator Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:00:46 +0000 Organization: University of Surrey, Guildford, England Message-ID: References: <87liqtpsl9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87mxaycmlx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87wra1hcek.fsf@netris.org> <87mxaxihnw.fsf@pobox.com> <87obvclu92.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87aa6wbp0w.fsf@pobox.com> <87fwgolgm5.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8762hkbkwi.fsf@pobox.com> <87borclcem.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87zkewa2vy.fsf@pobox.com> <87zkewjvyz.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87vcpka13n.fsf@pobox.com> <87zkewnzy7.fsf@netris.org> <87r5089ui3.fsf@pobox.com> <87r508nv0o.fsf@netris.org> <87fwgondme.fsf@netris.org> <87borboalb.fsf@netris.org> <877h1zo7xx.fsf_-_@netris.org> <8762hgkh2k.fsf_-_@netris.org> <8762hg50b3.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1324044084 32636 80.91.229.12 (16 Dec 2011 14:01:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:01:24 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 16 15:01:21 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RbYLg-0004LM-QD for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:01:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52965 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RbYLg-0008JY-EO for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:01:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51931) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RbYLX-0008Aq-OF for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:01:18 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RbYLR-00036M-OK for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:01:11 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:48500) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RbYLR-000368-Ia for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:01:05 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RbYLQ-0004DA-0t for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:01:04 +0100 Original-Received: from 131.227.8.61 ([131.227.8.61]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:01:03 +0100 Original-Received: from peter by 131.227.8.61 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:01:03 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 25 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.227.8.61 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:eASejI7vd6tw00HO1BlwWwr39m8= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 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:13138 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: >> * I still wouldn't be surprised if `local-eval' does the wrong thing if >> (current-module) is different from what it was when the associated >> `primitive-eval' was called. > > Before anyone even _defines_ what the "right thing" would be, there is > little point in worrying about this. I don't think that `local-eval' > 1.8 documented any behavior for this case (well, it did not document any > behavior for a lot of cases). > > So it probably makes sense to look afterwards what will happen without > special precautions, and unless that is spectacularly useless or > inconsistent, call it the "right thing" by definition. Maybe it makes even more sense (at this stage) to state that the behaviour in this case is undefined? Peter -- Peter Brett Remote Sensing Research Group Surrey Space Centre