[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: eval
From: |
Marius Vollmer |
Subject: |
Re: eval |
Date: |
09 Feb 2001 16:24:22 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 |
Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:
> On 7 Feb 2001, Neil Jerram wrote:
>
> > In fact, of course, it is _very_ different. The problem is the
> > implicit reference to `the-module'. Yet, if we follow Dirk's
> > suggestion of making the reference explicit, as in
> > `(eval/no-module-restore exp (current-module))', and `exp' is
> > `(define-module (some thing))', we arrive back at the interpretation
> > of a meaningless (IMO) expression.
>
> Hmmm? With the definition of eval/no-module-restore (or
> primitive-eval) the expression
>
> (eval/no-module-restore '(define-module (some thing)) (current-module))
Please note that `primitive-eval' will only take one argument, an
expression.
- Re: eval, (continued)
- Re: eval, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/02/09
- Re: eval, Marius Vollmer, 2001/02/10
- Re: eval, Neil Jerram, 2001/02/10
- Re: eval, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/02/11
- Re: eval, Neil Jerram, 2001/02/12
- Re: eval, Marius Vollmer, 2001/02/12
- Re: eval, Neil Jerram, 2001/02/13
- Re: eval, Marius Vollmer, 2001/02/13
- Re: eval, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/14
- Re: eval, Neil Jerram, 2001/02/14
- Re: eval,
Marius Vollmer <=
- Re: eval, Marius Vollmer, 2001/02/08
Re: eval, Neil Jerram, 2001/02/05