[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
compilation pragmas?
From: |
Massimiliano Gubinelli |
Subject: |
compilation pragmas? |
Date: |
Wed, 29 May 2019 09:53:46 +0200 |
Hello,
I noticed that the Tree IL compiler uses an ad-hoc code to check if some
symbol is dynamically defined by GOOPS, intercepting calls to the
toplevel-define! function which introduces just a new definition in the current
module. In TeXmacs we need some similar dynamics definition mechanism and I get
a lot of compiler warnings since the Tree IL analyser does not recognise my
definitions. Of course I have the option to redefine toplevel-define! like
GOOPS does, but I’m worried of possible name clashes. Another possibility would
be to introduce some “compiler pragma” support in the Tree IL compiler so that
it can have annotations which can then be ignored when producing more lower
lever code. In this way one could make the mechanism of suppressing particular
warnings (e.g. possibly undefined symbols) independent of hacks specific only
to certain libraries and provide more orthogonal features. Does it sounds
reasonable? I could try to hack it down but I would like to discuss first
possible design issues, I’m new to guile compiler.
Best regards,
Massimiliano Gubinelli
- compilation pragmas?,
Massimiliano Gubinelli <=