Hi,
Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes:
> On Sun 06 Mar 2011 23:26, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andreas Rottmann <a.rottm...@gmx.at> 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’.
