This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com 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]

Re: Reintroducing old `defined?' (was Re: Testing availabilty of a procedure)

To: Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@nada.kth.se>
Subject: Re: Reintroducing old `defined?' (was Re: Testing availabilty of a procedure)
From: Greg Harvey <Greg.Harvey@thezone.net>
Date: 03 May 1999 13:52:06 -0230
Cc: orre@nada.kth.se (Roland Orre), jimb@red-bean.com, guile@cygnus.com, ingo.hohmann@gmx.de, elrond@phoe.netdev.net, lalo@webcom.com
Original-Sender: Greg.Harvey@thezone.net
References: <199905030403.GAA24715@crunchy.nada.kth.se> <xy7pv4is4fq.fsf@mdj.nada.kth.se>

Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@nada.kth.se> writes:

> *** I suggest that we rename the current `defined?' into `bound?' and
>     re-introduce scm's special form `defined?'.

It would probably be better to introduce it as `defined', to avoid
confusion with an actual predicate; other than that, sounds like a
good idea (I like the procedure, more schemely :)

-- 
Greg

References:
- Re: Testing availabilty of a procedure
  - From: Roland Orre <orre@nada.kth.se>
- Reintroducing old `defined?' (was Re: Testing availabilty of a procedure)
  - From: Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@nada.kth.se>

Prev by Date: Interested in GOOPS
Next by Date: global variables & data tags (a la X-Windows callbacks)
Prev by thread: Re: Reintroducing old `defined?' (was Re: Testing availabilty of a procedure)
Next by thread: Re: Reintroducing old `defined?' (was Re: Testing availabilty of a procedure)
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]