Re: illegal uses of define in guile

[Marius Vollmer]

address@hidden writes:

> On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 05:22:03PM +0200, Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Summarized:
> > * The compiler must be able to emit code that allows references to
> >   identifiers to be looked up at use time (that is, in the executor).
> > * The executor must be able to handle definitions.
> > * Once a binding has been referenced, the binding should not change.
> 
> Is this going to be enforced at run time somehow (says he with a
> little evil grin) -- or does a change on an once-referenced binding
> result in undefined behaviour?

It will be enforced at run-time (according to my current plan, anyway,
see workbook/compiler/new-model.text), simply by not allowing changes
to modules that would change the outcome of lookups.  That is, you can
not remove bindings, or redirect them.

> In the first case there could be a hook for those interested in
> `fixing' the memoization. Then you would have the best of both
> worlds -- paying an extra penalty if you decide to do quirky
> things. In the second case, well...

When you do quirky things, would be OK to require you to reload code
that is affected by this?  Guile can help by offering a list of files
that would need to be reloaded.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405