This is the mail archive of the firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list for the guile project.
|Index Nav:||[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]|
|Message Nav:||[Date Prev] [Date Next]||[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
I think it is time to consider a redefinition of "defined?" to make it a special form. * defined? is still not standardized within the scheme standard (thanks Bertrand!) which is a pity as it is an essential procedure for everyone who tries to write code which is compatible between different interpreters and versions of interpreters. * In the current guile definition defined? is a procedure which evaluates its arguments. This is rather counterintuitive when both "define" and "undefine" are special forms. Ok "undefine" is not yet standardized either, but should be considered being standardized in the scheme standard as well, as non essential. Long running applications and shells etc need to be able to clean up. * For my own modules I have defined defined? to be a special form to make it compatible with scm and when considering the following answer on a request from Ingo Hohmann <email@example.com> Lalo Martins <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > (if (and (defined? a) (procedure? a)) > #t > (define (a) #t) > ) It seems as there are more than I who prefer/expect defined? to be a special form... * I guess that there are more people out there who prefer defined? to be a special form. Any objections? Best regards Roland Orre