> >Additionally, when building the setup.exe on Windows we compile guile from >source anyway, so applying a patch that has been sent to bug-guile but is >not contained in any release yet is perfectly fine, at least IMHO. > >-- andi5 > > > Again I am probably making some wrong assumptions. Compiling WHAT? The interpreter certainly, "eval" itself, perhaps a few of the most basic/most frequently used function definitions. But with most "extendable" languages like LISP and its dialects the bulk of the definitions available at the start are usually done in the language itself. OR, in "compile and go" implementations that makes little difference (any that are added are compiled before execution/evaluation as opposed to a strict "interpreter" implementation where the expression would be reinterpreted every time used.)
Isn't that true of Guile? Some reason to believe that these particular erroneous definitions were part of the compile? Even if they were, what difference would that make except perhaps speed when being evaluated? They still could be overridden by redefinition, yes? (I hope not confusing people with bringing up matters of how LISP like languages are implemented..) _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
