Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > These two 'raise' funtions are very different: one raises a Unix > signal, the other raises an exception. So I'd say the warning is OK.
[...] > The same is true for 'bit-count' as Kevin pointed out. I agree that these are way different functions, but I disagree about the remedy. You say that a warning is fine precisely because these are different functions. I say that I rarely type something like `(use-modules (srfi srfi-60))' _inadvertently_ in a Scheme file. Additionally, the _documentation_ of that module already warned me about the introduction of a different `bit-count' procedure, so if something goes wrong, it's all my fault. ;-) See also: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2005-10/msg00101.html . > If you don't want to warning, you can define your own way of handling > duplicates. See the NEWS file for docs about the options. Precisely, you said you were ok to apply the following documentation yesterday: This is useful for modules that export bindings that have the same name as core bindings. @code{#:replace}, in a sense, lets Guile know that the module @emph{purposefully} replaces a core binding. It is important to note, however, that this binding replacement is confined to the name space of the module user. In other words, the value of the core binding in question remains unchanged for other modules. So, do we agree on what `#:replace' is for? :-) As a matter of fact, this facility had remained undocumented for years and its original author is no longer here (I think) to explain the rationale behind it. Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel