Re: Reporting possibly unbound variables

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

> Are there deeper problems with compilation and define-class /
> module-define?  E.g. is it possible that correct compilation of code
> following a define-class or module-define would be dependent on
> understanding the define-class/module-define properly?

No.  For any variable that’s not lexically bound, the compiler generates
instructions that amount to ‘(module-ref (current-module) VAR)’.

Note that the warning reports /possibly/ unbound variables.  Variables
that get bound at run-time via ‘module-define!’ or similar are ignored,
and that’s precisely what ‘define-class’ does.

> On a loosely related point, I notice that we have deprecated eval-case
> in 1.9.x, in favour of eval-when.  But 1.8.x only has eval-case; so
> isn't the deprecation going to make it more difficult to handle code
> that has to be different in 1.8.x and 1.9/2.0?

Yes, I agree it’s problematic.  What about leaving both forms for 2.0,
and only deprecating ‘eval-case’ in the next stable series?

> Alternatively, should we add a suitable eval-when to the next 1.8.x
> release, to help with this?

That wouldn’t help much since it wouldn’t work with < 1.8.8.

Thanks,
Ludo’.