This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: SRFI package for guile, rscheme, and maybe stalin (minor questions).
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> writes:
> Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:
>
> > Therefore, I think the right approach to the extension in SRFI-1 is
> > to let the core primitive be restricted to R5RS behaviour,
> > reimplement the primitive in the list library, and let the new
> > primitive shadow the original when the user uses the list library
> > module.
>
> I had only thought that perhaps srfi-0 (i.e. cond-expand) could be put
> in the core (because otherwise there's a bootstrapping problem).
Yes. This is the kind of infrastructure which must be supported in
the core.
> In any case, I didn't know whether or not top-level meant that only
> one or both of these constructs would be OK:
>
> (cond-expand
> (guile something)
> (else))
>
> (let ()
> (something)
>
> (cond-expand
> (guile (foo 4))
> (else 5)))
>
> I suspected that the second would also be considered top-level, but I
> wasn't sure.
I'm not familiar with the details of SRFI-0, but I can assure you that
the second case above is _not_ toplevel, because it is inside the
lexical scope of the surrounding let.
Best regards,
/mdj
- References:
- Re: SRFI package for guile, rscheme, and maybe stalin (minor questions).
- Re: SRFI package for guile, rscheme, and maybe stalin (minor questions).
- Re: SRFI package for guile, rscheme, and maybe stalin (minor questions).
- Re: SRFI package for guile, rscheme, and maybe stalin (minor questions).
- Re: SRFI package for guile, rscheme, and maybe stalin (minor questions).