Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hi,
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
