Re: [PATCH] Don't mix definitions and expressions in SRFI-9

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun 06 Mar 2011 23:26, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andreas Rottmann <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> The expansion of `define-inlinable' contained an expression, which made
>>> SRFI-9's `define-record-type' fail in non-toplevel contexts ("definition
>>> used in expression context").
>>
>> SRFI-9 says “Record-type definitions may only occur at top-level”, and
>> I’m inclined to stick to it.  If we diverge, then people could write
>> code thinking it’s portable SRFI-9 code while it’s not.
>
> Does anyone actually care about this?  We provide many compatible
> extensions to standard interfaces.  It seems like this would be an
> "unnecessary restriction which makes `let-record-type' seem necessary".

OK, I lost.  ;-)

But, can we:

  1. Document the extension.

  2. Choose PROC-NAME such that -Wunused-toplevel won’t complain.
     There’s a trick for this: if it contains white space, then
     -Wunused-toplevel won’t complain; however, it has to be generated
     deterministically because it can appear in other compilation units,
     so we can’t use ‘generate-temporaries’ here.

Thanks,
Ludo’.