Hi,
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, indeed. Just one detail: I suspect that
>
> scm_frame_fluid(the_reader, SCM_BOOL_F);
>
> might be less surprising than
>
> scm_frame_fluid(the_reader, CURRENT_READER());
>
> at the start of primitive-load. Given how Guile works already, I
>
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When using (oop goops) ? I'm not sure (oop goops util) is meant to be
> used outside the goops implementation.
And what difference does/would it make?
> (There's a non-tail recursive mapappend which could probably benefit
> from srfi-1 append-map too, in
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't really want to silently replace the core bit-count, the
> srfi-60 one is completely different. It's pretty annoying to get a
> warning or have to use #:renamer, but I don't know a better way.
`#:replace' _is_ this better way: it does _not_ overrid
Hi,
It occurred to me that `define-module' is only partially documented, in
particular, `#:re-export', `#:replace' and `#:duplicates' are not
documented at all.
I tried to do my best to document them accurately but note that (i) I'm
not a native English speaker and (ii) from the discussion we've
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> it does _not_ override the core
> binding, unlike `(use-modules (srfi srfi-60))' (with no renamer) in the
> current state. What it does is that is replaces this binding only
> within the module user: the binding replacement is confined.
Yes, I'm tal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> When using (oop goops) ? I'm not sure (oop goops util) is meant to be
>> used outside the goops implementation.
>
> And what difference does/would it make?
If you're not supposed to use it then any warning
