David Kastrup writes:
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> Indeed, (local-eval '(set! x 5) ) is _not_ equivalent to
>> (module-set! (current-module) 'x 5).
>
> To clarify: I was thinking about
>
> (local-eval '(set! x 5) ) vs
> (local-eval '(module-set! (current-module) 'x 5) )
Unless `module-set!' or
David Kastrup writes:
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> Indeed, (local-eval '(set! x 5) ) is _not_ equivalent to
>> (module-set! (current-module) 'x 5).
>
> To clarify: I was thinking about
>
> (local-eval '(set! x 5) ) vs
> (local-eval '(module-set! (current-module) 'x 5) )
>
>> Assuming that `x' is
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Indeed, (local-eval '(set! x 5) ) is _not_ equivalent to
> (module-set! (current-module) 'x 5).
To clarify: I was thinking about
(local-eval '(set! x 5) ) vs
(local-eval '(module-set! (current-module) 'x 5) )
> Assuming that `x' is not locally bound within the captured
> David Kastrup writes:
>> within local-eval, what is the return value of calling
>> (current-module)? I would expect that it is the same as outside of
>> local-eval
I wrote:
> Actually, this is not true. Within `local-eval', (current-module) is
> temporarily restored (using dynamic-wind) to th
Mark H Weaver writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>> within local-eval, what is the return value of calling
>> (current-module)? I would expect that it is the same as outside of
>> local-eval
>
> Actually, this is not true. Within `local-eval', (current-module) is
> temporarily restored (using dyn
David Kastrup writes:
> within local-eval, what is the return value of calling
> (current-module)? I would expect that it is the same as outside of
> local-eval
Actually, this is not true. Within `local-eval', (current-module) is
temporarily restored (using dynamic-wind) to the module saved in
On Sat 14 Jan 2012 16:16, David Kastrup writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> On Sat 14 Jan 2012 09:59, David Kastrup writes:
>>
>>> so that (define x 5) inside of local-eval would _not_ be equivalent to
>>> (module-define! (current-module) 'x 5) as the first one would take the
>>> current module a
Hi Mark,
Thanks again for working on local-eval. I didn't like it at first, but
you did an admirable job handling all of the semantic, implementation,
and social nitty-gritties in order to solve the problem nicely.
Excellent!
If it is the case that it gets in for 2.0.4, then great. We should tr
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Sat 14 Jan 2012 09:59, David Kastrup writes:
>
>> so that (define x 5) inside of local-eval would _not_ be equivalent to
>> (module-define! (current-module) 'x 5) as the first one would take the
>> current module at the-environment time, and the second one would take
>> i
On Sat 14 Jan 2012 09:59, David Kastrup writes:
> In Guilev1, the module is probably recorded as part of the
> procedure-environment. In Guilev2, a variable reference is compiled?
> How does that work when there is no such variable? It gets created
> with an undefined binding?
Guile 2.0.x reco
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Probably the easiest way to think about it is that (the-environment)
> acts like (list (lambda () ) ...), with one `lambda' for each
> expression that you will later pass to `local-eval'. Calling
> `local-eval' simply calls the appropriate procedure in that list.
Well, I
Probably the easiest way to think about it is that (the-environment)
acts like (list (lambda () ) ...), with one `lambda' for each
expression that you will later pass to `local-eval'. Calling
`local-eval' simply calls the appropriate procedure in that list.
Of course, it can't actually work that
Mark H Weaver writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>> I am still fuzzy on what local-eval will do when the current module at
>> the time of the-environment is different from that at the time of
>> local-eval.
>
> (the-environment) saves the module (where it is textually located) in
What does "where
David Kastrup writes:
> I am still fuzzy on what local-eval will do when the current module at
> the time of the-environment is different from that at the time of
> local-eval.
(the-environment) saves the module (where it is textually located) in
the lexical environment object. If (the-environme
Mark H Weaver writes:
> I'd like to make one last plea to include my simple `local-eval'
> implementation in 2.0.4. My hope is that if we can ship it soon enough,
> versions of Guile without `local-eval' will be rare enough to enable
> Lilypond to eliminate their ugly hacks and simply declare th
On 01/12/12 13:43, Mark H Weaver wrote:
I worked very hard to produce a simple and maintainable implementation
of `local-eval' in time for 2.0.4, so that we might rectify this
unfortunate Lilypond unhappiness. It would be a shame if that work were
wasted.
Just for the record, I'm okay with tak
16 matches
Mail list logo
