|
From: | Neil Jerram |
Subject: | Re: case syntax and symbols |
Date: | Tue, 24 May 2005 19:01:55 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050420 Debian/1.7.7-2 |
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hi, Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:Isn't the rule we want "whenever a new definition shadows an existing definition in a module, and the existing definition did not originate in the current module"? This rule would also avoid giving unwanted warnings when an edited module is reloaded.There is probably code that relies on redefinitions being silently interpreted as a `set!', I'm afraid. So I don't think Guile should start issuing warnings for redefinitions by default.
Yes, exactly - that's what my rule avoids doing, isn't it?Or are you thinking of a "redefinition" as something different to what I'm thinking? The case I'm thinking of is where a file contains a definition, and you load that file twice (perhaps via use-modules, but that's not important).
Neil
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |