This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Bad define placement?
- To: Tano Fotang <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Bad define placement?
- From: Mikael Djurfeldt <email@example.com>
- Date: 27 Aug 1999 21:39:41 +0200
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Cc: email@example.com
- References: <37C6E7F8.26BB@yahoo.com>
Tano Fotang <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I hope that's a good thing. This define thing infected
> so much code that it should maybe be made standard.
To me that proves how good the change is. This kind of
incompatibility with R5RS generates a lot of confusion. E.g., you can
easily be fooled into thinking that your own code is portable, while
in fact it isn't.
Jim has made a policy decision that we will, in most respects, be R5RS
compatible and I think that is very wise.
One could argue that it would be a better solution if internal defines
were rewritten to letrec* instead of letrec. The right forum for
promoting this change is in comp.lang.scheme. As soon as RnRS changes
on this point, Guile will as well.