On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Ramana Kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
> The two characterizations I gave are different. I'm not sure which
> one, if any, you are endorsing.
> Do you want "unused import" to mean:
> 1. "import for which you cannot tell from the behavior of the script
> whether it is present or absent", OR
This is implementation-dependent. There are programs in Ikarus where
having or not having the import has no effect (like the foo
library of before) but such than in other implementations there
is a visible effect instead. I find more intuitive and natural the
semantics such that all imported modules are instantiated
(say once and only once per OS process).
> 2. "import none of whose exports are referenced anywhere in the script
> (or library body) at any time"
> I think they are different, so you would have to pick one (or neither).
> This definition of "unused" is for what you would want out of Ikarus
> when you give the --warnings flag.
This is a compromise I am not very happy with, but maybe
better than the present situation.
But it seems to me we are going in circles, I have repeated the
same thing many times already, so I will stop for today.
Michele
