[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (no subject)
From: |
Clinton Ebadi |
Subject: |
Re: (no subject) |
Date: |
Sat, 9 Nov 2002 15:42:14 -0500 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.4.2 |
On Saturday 09 November 2002 03:29, Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> > Not to mention how Guile wouldn't be Scheme anymore. Why can't code be
> > memiozied and compiled incrementally?
>
> First, why wouldn't guile be scheme any more if conditional definitions
> are disallowed? They are disallowed by R5RS, so actually, if you
> understand "being scheme" as "conforming to R5RS" then currently guile is
> not scheme and disallowing conditional definitions will bring it one step
> closer to "being scheme" :-)
I was referring to the part where you would have to reload your code if a
binding changed and the whole (define define define-private) etc. not
working.
--
http://unknownlamer.org
Truth lies in loneliness
When hope is long gone by