Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1

[Michael Livshin]

Keisuke Nishida <address@hidden> writes:

> At 07 Feb 2001 12:44:55 +0200,
> Michael Livshin wrote:
> > 
> > > In the future, I guess smobs and classes should be defined in
> > > association with specific modules.  That way, we can determine
> > > each smob and class by a name like "guile::core::type::keyword".
> > 
> > hmm.  Guile is, more or less, a Scheme implementation ;).  the
> > Schemey way is to have names only for _bindings_, not objects.
> 
> Why don't you consider the above name to be a _binding_, then? :)
> Looking up a smob type by name is just a binding, isn't it?

sure.  it's just that there's no machinery to treat the smob names as
proper bindings.

what environment/module do smob names occupy?

what happens when you try to register two smob types with name "foo"?

what happend when a smob name is the same as some other name?

not anything unsolvable, of course, just not well-defined.

-- 
Purely applicative languages are poorly applicable.
                -- Alan Perlis