[Chicken-janitors] Re: #32: get tinyclos egg for chicken 4 to work

[Chicken Trac]

#32: get tinyclos egg for chicken 4 to work
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  felix       |       Owner:  tonysidaway
     Type:  defect      |      Status:  assigned   
 Priority:  major       |   Milestone:             
Component:  extensions  |     Version:  4.0.5      
 Keywords:  tinyclos    |  
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------

Comment(by felix):

 Replying to [comment:13 tonysidaway]:
 >
 > These semantics also seem to apply in Erick Gallesio's object module in
 STKlos, but I still think they're wrong in Scheme.  An inner block
 probably shouldn't create new top-level bindings in a lexically scoped
 block-structured language.

 I absolutely agree. It's also a difference in development styles: in CL
 you normally have a long-running image and you need a way to wipe out all
 methods of a generic function (this is what `DEFGENERIC` does). With a
 batch-compiler this is not that important. I think one should require a
 `define-generic`, to have a clear indication of where the generic function
 is defined. Fiddling with the bound/unbound status of toplevel variables
 like this appears crude - one defines a variable "potentially", depending
 on whether a generic function already exists or not.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://www.irp.oist.jp/trac/chicken/ticket/32#comment:14>
Chicken Scheme <http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org/>
Chicken Scheme is a compiler for the Scheme programming language.