Re: define and modules

[Dirk Herrmann]

On 4 Nov 2002, Marius Vollmer wrote:

> Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> No, since 'define' is a syntactic keyword... which is probably not the
> reason you were expecting, right?

It is exactly the reason.  The question is, how should guile react here?
Or, what should a memoizer do with this code?  I currently just leave the
symbol define where it is, that is my memoizer makes
  (address@hidden define-private define)
from that expression.  This results then in a 'unbound symbol' error,
since the executor does not care for macros any more.  This solution makes
sense if the example is slightly different:

  (begin
    (define and #t)
    (define foo and))

Here, the memoizer would first memoize the code to:

  (address@hidden
    (address@hidden and #t)
    (address@hidden foo and))

and the executor would find a valid non-macro definition for 'and' when it
tries to execute the definition for 'foo'.

So, what do you think should be guile's behaviour?

Best regards
Dirk