On 05-08-2022 10:31, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I understand what you’re saying (I’m quite familiar with Guile’s module
> system :-) and I do agree that #:ensure #t can lead to bad surprises),
> but I don’t think this is correct:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> scheme@(guile-user)> (resolve-interface '(xxx))
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
> no code for module (xxx)
>
> Entering a new prompt.  Type `,bt' for a backtrace or `,q' to continue.
> scheme@(guile-user) [1]> ,q
> scheme@(guile-user)> (resolve-module '(xxx) #f #:ensure #f)
> $1 = #f
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> This is because ‘resolve-interface’ does (resolve-module … #:ensure #f).
>
> Does that make sense?

Oops, I thought the #:ensure #f was universal to all the resolve-... 
interfaces, but apparently not for resole-interface! In that case, no 
problem, though I'd like to eventually make some changes to the Guile 
docs for clarity (and maybe change the default #:ensure #t -> #f)

Greetings,
Maxime.