Re: case syntax and symbols

[Neil Jerram]

Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:
>
>
> > Isn't the rule we want "whenever a new definition shadows an existing
> > definition in a module, and the existing definition did not originate
> > in the current module"?  This rule would also avoid giving unwanted
> > warnings when an edited module is reloaded.
>
>
> There is probably code that relies on redefinitions being silently
> interpreted as a `set!', I'm afraid.  So I don't think Guile should
> start issuing warnings for redefinitions by default.

Yes, exactly - that's what my rule avoids doing, isn't it?

Or are you thinking of a "redefinition" as something different to what 
I'm thinking?  The case I'm thinking of is where a file contains a 
definition, and you load that file twice (perhaps via use-modules, but 
that's not important).

        Neil