srfi-34 and raise

srfi-34 and raise

[Tristan Colgate]

Hi,

  Using srfi-34 causes a warning indicating that it overrides core
binding "raise". It doesn't
cause any problems but is a bit irritating. What is the correct way to
silence this warning.

  Cheers
-- 
Tristan Colgate-McFarlane
----
  "You can get all your daily vitamins from 52 pints of guiness, and a
glass of milk"

Re: srfi-34 and raise

[Andy Wingo]

On Fri 04 Jun 2010 10:48, Tristan Colgate <tcolgate@gmail.com> writes:

>   Using srfi-34 causes a warning indicating that it overrides core
> binding "raise". It doesn't
> cause any problems but is a bit irritating. What is the correct way to
> silence this warning.

Part of me wants to say that you should rename the binding or something,
but given that `raise' is in core that's difficult to do without making
a pure module, then using guile-user #:except raise. See also "Creating
Guile Modules" in the manual, around the duplicates handlers bit.

As it is I'm changing srfi-34 in git to use #:replace instead of
#:export, so as to be more DWIM-y. It's always an option for a user in
their module to do #:duplicates (check), after all...

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: srfi-34 and raise

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> As it is I'm changing srfi-34 in git to use #:replace instead of
> #:export, so as to be more DWIM-y. It's always an option for a user in
> their module to do #:duplicates (check), after all...

FWIW, I agree but not everybody does:

  http://www.mail-archive.com/guile-devel@gnu.org/msg00469.html

There are also many bindings that could be #:replaced in the rnrs
modules.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: srfi-34 and raise

[Andy Wingo]

Greets,

On Sun 06 Jun 2010 22:47, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> As it is I'm changing srfi-34 in git to use #:replace instead of
>> #:export, so as to be more DWIM-y. It's always an option for a user in
>> their module to do #:duplicates (check), after all...
>
> FWIW, I agree but not everybody does:
>
>   http://www.mail-archive.com/guile-devel@gnu.org/msg00469.html

Ah, that is a nice discussion, thank you for the link. I see both sides
but I am tired of the warning, so I think we should acquiesce here,
knowing that #:duplicates (check) is always an option.

> There are also many bindings that could be #:replaced in the rnrs
> modules.

Yes, we should fix that. Perhaps Julian would be willing to do that? :-)

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: srfi-34 and raise

[Julian Graham]

Hey all,


>> There are also many bindings that could be #:replaced in the rnrs
>> modules.
>
> Yes, we should fix that. Perhaps Julian would be willing to do that? :-)

Sure, although the solution that springs to my mind first is to make
all bindings introduced by R6RS libraries #:replace-ing, via the
`import' transformer.  Objections?  (Alternatively, we could make
those particular libraries into modules that #:replace particular
bindings, but that seems a bit messier and doesn't address future
issues with other libraries.)


Regards,
Julian

Re: srfi-34 and raise

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Julian Graham <joolean@gmail.com> writes:

>>> There are also many bindings that could be #:replaced in the rnrs
>>> modules.
>>
>> Yes, we should fix that. Perhaps Julian would be willing to do that? :-)
>
> Sure, although the solution that springs to my mind first is to make
> all bindings introduced by R6RS libraries #:replace-ing, via the
> `import' transformer.  Objections?

Can you give an example of what you mean?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: srfi-34 and raise

[Andy Wingo]

On Mon 07 Jun 2010 12:07, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Julian Graham <joolean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> There are also many bindings that could be #:replaced in the rnrs
>>>> modules.
>>>
>>> Yes, we should fix that. Perhaps Julian would be willing to do that? :-)
>>
>> Sure, although the solution that springs to my mind first is to make
>> all bindings introduced by R6RS libraries #:replace-ing, via the
>> `import' transformer.  Objections?
>
> Can you give an example of what you mean?

Yes I think I would want an example as well. I guess I would prefer that
only exports to bindings in (guile) would be #:replaced (but that
decision made programatically).

A
-- 
http://wingolog.org/