Re: compilation pragmas?

[Nala Ginrut]

Hi Massimiliano!
Could you show some code to elaborate on your idea? It's too vague to
understand by a pure text description.

Thanks!

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 8:43 PM Massimiliano Gubinelli
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>