[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Document top-level pseudo-hygiene
From: |
Andy Wingo |
Subject: |
Re: Document top-level pseudo-hygiene |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:07:21 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hi :)
On Mon 27 Jan 2014 05:50, Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> writes:
> "Andy Wingo" <address@hidden> writes:
>> commit 03dfed840b377a72191b6f125c106fdfd9e90a21
>> Author: Andy Wingo <address@hidden>
>> Date: Fri Jan 24 12:34:26 2014 +0100
>>
>> Document top-level pseudo-hygiene
>>
>> * doc/ref/api-macros.texi (Hygiene and the Top-Level): Add a section
>> documenting our pseudo-hygienic top-level names.
>
> As I've said before, I strenuously object to these novel semantics that
> you've invented. I believe this would be an ugly wart on Guile that we
> would have to support indefinitely, in violation of the standards,
> because its existence would encourage people to write code that depends
> upon it.
I think the hyperbole is a bit out of place. All semantics are invented
and novel at some point; that is not an argument against a thing. But
you object; OK.
> Now, to reduce the danger that a library author might unwittingly make
> the mistake you're (rightly) worried about, I suggest that we rig the
> compiler to issue a warning whenever an introduced toplevel identifier
> crosses a module boundary.
I don't think we know this information. WDYT about warning when
residualizing a fresh toplevel? Or even raising an error? Perhaps one
could configure this somehow.
I certainly do not want any fresh toplevels to be residualized within
Guile proper, and I expect the same goes for other projects as well.
Fresh toplevels are just a novel semantic some people invented that I
strenuously object to ;-)
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: Document top-level pseudo-hygiene,
Andy Wingo <=