From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ian Price Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Is this a bug? Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:24:58 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20110816123610.GA8991@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> <87ipppcbcm.fsf@yeeloong.netris.org> <20110829112725.GA12774@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> <871uw2c0h4.fsf@yeeloong.netris.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1314733519 17032 80.91.229.12 (30 Aug 2011 19:45:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:45:19 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 30 21:45:16 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@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 1QyUFG-0000jI-8T for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:45:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57240 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QyUFF-0006BB-Ov for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:45:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:34348) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QyUFB-0006Am-Sc for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:45:10 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QyUFA-0003i4-S7 for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:45:09 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:33119) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QyUFA-0003hm-LZ for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:45:08 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QyUF9-0000g1-3A for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:45:07 +0200 Original-Received: from host86-182-16-78.range86-182.btcentralplus.com ([86.182.16.78]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:45:07 +0200 Original-Received: from ianprice90 by host86-182-16-78.range86-182.btcentralplus.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:45:07 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 20 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host86-182-16-78.range86-182.btcentralplus.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:dV8jy/kGU6pk2FmbNpNUpuuzLgU= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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 Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:8753 Archived-At: Mark H Weaver writes: > `load' is optional in the R5RS, and it has been removed entirely from > the R6RS, which was designed with compilers in mind. Guile allows the > use of `load', but its compiler assumes that undeclared identifiers are > top-level _variables_, not syntax. This seems a reasonable compromise. While I more than agree with the compromise, perhaps a note could be added to the documentation given 'load' has a different behaviour at the REPL and in modules. In a module, we expect the above; at the REPL, we want the syntax-definitions available. Perhaps something like "Since 'load' happens at run-time, syntax definitions will have no effect on existing procedures, although they will be available at the REPL." -- Ian Price "Programming is like pinball. The reward for doing it well is the opportunity to do it again" - from "The Wizardy Compiled"