From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Do we have to worry about the names of generic functions? Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 15:53:03 -0400 Organization: What did you have in mind? A short, blunt, human pyramid? Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <1084358048.15175.235.camel@localhost> <1084563638.32494.72.camel@localhost> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1084651426 22280 80.91.224.253 (15 May 2004 20:03:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 20:03:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Guile Users Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 15 22:03:38 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BP5Ni-0001zw-00 for ; Sat, 15 May 2004 22:03:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BP5K3-0007Re-SB for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 15:59:51 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BP5Jt-0007QL-Un for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 15:59:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BP5JB-0006Eu-Ir for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 15:59:29 -0400 Original-Received: from [129.22.104.47] (helo=mirapoint2.tis.cwru.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1BP5Et-0004X8-Pf for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 15:54:31 -0400 Original-Received: from multivac.cwru.edu (multivac.ITS.CWRU.Edu [129.22.114.26]) by mirapoint2.tis.cwru.edu (MOS 3.4.3-CR) with SMTP id BDF35077; Sat, 15 May 2004 15:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (qmail 5058 invoked by uid 500); 15 May 2004 19:53:27 -0000 Original-To: Andy Wingo In-Reply-To: <1084563638.32494.72.camel@localhost> (Andy Wingo's message of "Fri, 14 May 2004 20:40:38 +0100") Mail-Copies-To: nobody Mail-Followup-To: Andy Wingo , Guile Users Original-Lines: 23 User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:3178 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:3178 Andy Wingo wrote: > I'm not clear on the difference, except wrt collisions with > non-generics, which I believe Andreas covered. Well, he mentioned ensure-generic, but that only works on procedures. Also suppose that I have this: (use-modules (foo goops-module)) (use-modules (bar non-goops-module)) If both of those export the same name, then the non-goops module wins. Which means it won't matter what the goops module did to defend against collisions. I have to resort to using a #:renamer, because the default names weren't distinct enough. That said, some conflicts just can't be foreseen, and #:renamer isn't such a big burden for those cases. (Personally, I always use an explicit #:select to ensure I only pull in what I want, and I get no collisions.) But I agree with Rob that names should be designed for readability and greppability; users shouldn't have to go to extra effort (duplicated in each dependent module) to get those benefits. paul _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user