Re: Prevent inlining

[Linus Björnstam]

Will it not inline "(not-inline x)" and then peval it to x? What are you trying 
to avoid? I am out on very deep water here, now I am just genuinely curious :D
-- 
  Linus Björnstam

On Thu, 13 Feb 2020, at 08:36, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
> No even if you have cross module inlining you will still be able to 
> tell i a module will allow inlining or not else you will break quite a 
> lot of nice scheme idioms.
> This means that this is indeed future proof.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:50 PM Linus Björnstam 
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > If guile ever gets cross-module Inlining in even the simplest form, this 
> > will break. This kind of inlining is probably the most secure one to rely 
> > on ever (my for loops rely on it, for example). A more future proof option 
> > is maybe to (set! ...) A variable within the same module, which makes it 
> > implicitly boxed. Slow unless guile is able to do unboxing...
> > 
> >  Ludo used the trick here: 
> > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/commit/?id=bf1f5422bdb364667d6761dd73454558d6dbf895
> > 
> >  -- 
> >  Linus Björnstam
> > 
> >  On Wed, 12 Feb 2020, at 18:44, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
> >  > Hi all,
> >  > 
> >  > Current guile inlines even variables exposed in the module interface, 
> >  > and I understand that we must live with that and code around it. So 
> >  > here is a few tips how to mitigate it.
> >  > 
> >  > The simplest way is to put this definition in a module:
> >  > ------------------------
> >  > (define-module (syntax not-inline)
> >  > #:export (not-inline))
> >  > 
> >  > (cond-expand
> >  > (guile-3.0
> >  > (define (not-inline x) x))
> >  > ((or (guile-2.0 guile-2.2)
> >  > (define-syntax-rule (not-inline x) x)))
> >  > 
> >  > -------------------------------------
> >  > And then in another module do,
> >  > 
> >  > (use-modules (syntax not-inline))
> >  > (define variable (not-inline 12))
> >  > (define function (not-inline (lambda () ...)))
> >  > etc
> >  > 
> >  > This is also an option (not perfect but you get the gist)
> >  > 
> >  > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >  > (define-module (syntax define-not-inlinable)
> >  > #:use-module (syntax not-inline)
> >  > #:export (inline define lambda define* lambda* define-values)
> >  > (define inline (lambda (x) x))
> >  > (define-syntax define
> >  > (syntax-rules (inline)
> >  > ((define (f . x) . code)
> >  > (define f (not-inline (lambda x . code)))
> >  > ((define f (inline x))
> >  > (define f x))
> >  > ((define f x)
> >  > (define f (not-inlinable x))))
> >  > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  > using this module will make all usual define not inlineable and to 
> >  > enable inlining you would
> >  > explicitly ask for it like
> >  > 
> >  > (define f (inline (lambda (x) (+ x 10))))
> >  > 
> >  > If there is a need for this I can write the modules and expose it on 
> >  > the intertubes.
> >  > 
> >  > WDYT
> >  > 
> >  > /Stefan
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  >