read-header procedure of (web http) module has a bug?

read-header procedure of (web http) module has a bug?

[Sunjoong Lee]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 129 bytes --]

Hello,

I wonder I found a bug;
read-header procedure use parse-header procedure but parse-header is
defined after read-header!!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 182 bytes --]

Re: read-header procedure of (web http) module has a bug?

[Noah Lavine]

Hello,

That's actually perfectly legal. The procedure definitions at the top
level of a module can all call each other.

(This also applies to all of the procedures inside a 'let' or similar.)

Noah

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Sunjoong Lee <sunjoong@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I wonder I found a bug;
> read-header procedure use parse-header procedure but parse-header is defined
> after read-header!!
>

Re: read-header procedure of (web http) module has a bug?

[Sunjoong Lee]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 633 bytes --]

Thanks Noah.

2012/4/25 Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@gmail.com>

> Hello,
>
> That's actually perfectly legal. The procedure definitions at the top
> level of a module can all call each other.
>
> (This also applies to all of the procedures inside a 'let' or similar.)


I see. You mean the procedures of the same level can call each other. Right?

I have another question; What if the macro case?
Suppose there is a procedure to use another macro and definition of the
macro is after the procedure, is it illegal?

Oh, another one; each procedure call of the same level is legal on other
language like Chicken? I'm confused.

Thanks.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1085 bytes --]

Re: read-header procedure of (web http) module has a bug?

[Noah Lavine]

Hello,

> I see. You mean the procedures of the same level can call each other. Right?

Yes, that's right. And procedures at one level can always call to
procedures at a higher level, but not the other way around.

> I have another question; What if the macro case?
> Suppose there is a procedure to use another macro and definition of the
> macro is after the procedure, is it illegal?

Good question. I don't know the answer to that.

> Oh, another one; each procedure call of the same level is legal on other
> language like Chicken? I'm confused.

Yes, I think this should be legal in all Scheme implementations,
including Guile and Chicken.

I hope this helps.

Re: read-header procedure of (web http) module has a bug?

[Sunjoong Lee]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1016 bytes --]

It's very pleasure to know something new.

2012/4/25 Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@gmail.com>
>
> Yes, that's right. And procedures at one level can always call to
> procedures at a higher level, but not the other way around.


I understood.


>  > I have another question; What if the macro case?
> > Suppose there is a procedure to use another macro and definition of the
> > macro is after the procedure, is it illegal?
>
> Good question. I don't know the answer to that.
>

I think it illegal; you know, I groused about the definition order
of test-apply procedure and test-with-runner macro to Per.

> Oh, another one; each procedure call of the same level is legal on other
> > language like Chicken? I'm confused.
>
> Yes, I think this should be legal in all Scheme implementations,
> including Guile and Chicken.
>

Very confused; I saw many compile errors and it disappeared after
re-ordering definitions on Chicken. But this is not a Guile problem.


> I hope this helps.
>

Very helpful and thank you again.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1902 bytes --]

Re: read-header procedure of (web http) module has a bug?

[Noah Lavine]

>> > Oh, another one; each procedure call of the same level is legal on other
>> > language like Chicken? I'm confused.
>>
>> Yes, I think this should be legal in all Scheme implementations,
>> including Guile and Chicken.
>
>
> Very confused; I saw many compile errors and it disappeared after
> re-ordering definitions on Chicken. But this is not a Guile problem.

Then either I am wrong or Chicken does not follow the standard right
now. I don't know which.

Noah

Re: read-header procedure of (web http) module has a bug?

[Sunjoong Lee]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 842 bytes --]

This is not a question; are examples. Yesterday, Noah gave me an answer and
I tanks.

2012/4/25 Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@gmail.com>
>
> Yes, that's right. And procedures at one level can always call to
> procedures at a higher level, but not the other way around.


;;; filename: called1.scm
(define (calling arg) (called arg))
(define (called arg) arg)
(display (calling 10))
(newline)

> Suppose there is a procedure to use another macro and definition of the
> > macro is after the procedure, is it illegal?
>
> Good question. I don't know the answer to that.


;;; filename: called2.scm
(define-syntax called (syntax-rules () ((_ arg) arg)))
(define (calling arg) (called arg))
(display (calling 10))
(newline)

In called1.scm, the order of calling and called are not a problem.
In called2.scm, called should be defined before calling.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1497 bytes --]