Re: define and modules

[Dirk Herrmann]

On 3 Nov 2002, Marius Vollmer wrote:

> Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Great.  However, currently, guile's handling of defines is buggy or at
> > least in contrast to R5RS.  Changing it would break existing code as shown
> > in the following two examples:
> 
> I see.  I'd say we don't need to slavishly follow R5RS here since R5RS
> does not talk about modules. And we don't need to keep our current,
> mostly accidental semantics either.  So there is opportunity to do the
> Right Thing...

OK, talking about the right thing:  How should guile react to the
following code:

(define define-private define)

This is done in boot9.scm.  Should this be allowed?

Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann