Hi Massimiliano! Could you show some code to elaborate on your idea? It's too vague to understand by a pure text description.
Thanks! On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 8:43 PM Massimiliano Gubinelli <m.gubine...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > I noticed that the Tree IL compiler uses an ad-hoc code to check if some > symbol is dynamically defined by GOOPS, intercepting calls to the > toplevel-define! function which introduces just a new definition in the > current module. In TeXmacs we need some similar dynamics definition mechanism > and I get a lot of compiler warnings since the Tree IL analyser does not > recognise my definitions. Of course I have the option to redefine > toplevel-define! like GOOPS does, but I’m worried of possible name clashes. > Another possibility would be to introduce some “compiler pragma” support in > the Tree IL compiler so that it can have annotations which can then be > ignored when producing more lower lever code. In this way one could make the > mechanism of suppressing particular warnings (e.g. possibly undefined > symbols) independent of hacks specific only to certain libraries and provide > more orthogonal features. Does it sounds reasonable? I could try to hack it > down but I would like to discuss first possible design issues, I’m new to > guile compiler. > > Best regards, > Massimiliano Gubinelli > >
