Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Marius Vollmer wrote: >> Hmm. There are two things here that might want a warning: >> redefining >> something that was a macro as a variable; > > Sounds good; and vice versa?
Yes, and vice versa. > By the way, has your idea about having "identifier -> macro" instead > of "identifier -> variable -> macro" been implemented yet? No, and I have no plans to do it before 1.8. > 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. Yes, that sounds like a better rule to me. -- GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405 _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
