[gambit-list] calling scheme from C
pierarda at iro.umontreal.ca
Mon Jun 15 11:21:54 EDT 2009
2009/6/16 James Long <longster at gmail.com>:
> I wouldn't want this. It's common in Gambit for LOAD to be ambiguous,
I meant to write a question, but forgot the mark.
That's also why I added the static analysis part (as in "if you don't
know, don't do it").
*Yet*, even thoung linking too early may be bad, *compiling* ahead
might not (but then, I don't remember/know whether state involved
during macro expansion "survives" at run time and can be used when
loading another file with macros).
> If Gambit ever adopts a module system, we may have enough information
> to rationalize about the modules, and this may be possible.
I should fork a new thread for that, but besides its newness  and
the complete lack of documentation on the wiki, are there any
drawbacks to blackhole?
 That's a nice word I've never heard or used before today. Not
quite like "novelty", right?
Français, English, 日本語, 한국어
More information about the Gambit-list