Re: New module system

[Jim Blandy]

Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:
> Jim Blandy <address@hidden> writes:
> > What if the macro has expanded to a bunch of top-level definitions
> > which have been evaluated?
> 
> Answer: The macro call would be unexpanded.

Leaving the definitions created by the old expansion still in the
environment?  That doesn't seem right.  It certainly breaks the
consistency rule I just made up a few minutes ago.  :)

I'm just saying that reloading one file may imply that others need to
be reloaded too.  What's wrong with that?


> Now, I've not turned into the Knight of the Macro Call Unexpansion
> Crusade yet, but right now, the suggestion to add macro calls to the
> unmemoization protocol seems to increase consistency in the system in
> the sense that as soon as you have re-evaluated a macro definition,
> all uses of that macro elsewhere will have a behaviour consistent with
> the new definition.

I agree, it increases consistency.  But I bet a smart reload command
would be more useful, more consistent, and simpler.