One straightforward interpretation of "import forms which are ignored by the compiler" could be "import specs for which you cannot tell whether they are present or absent from the behavior of the script." But then you can't define "unused libraries" that are imported into libraries: I think whether or not they are "unused" will depend on the top-level script.
However I think Michele also wanted to include cases where you can tell by observing, say, the printed output coming from an expression in a library body. So an alternative interpretation could be "import specs none of whose exports are referenced anywhere in the script/library body (at any time)". (In this case, (only (foo)) would always count as "unused" since it provides no opportunities for referencing an export.) Do either of these phrases capture what you mean by "unused" or "ignored", Michele? On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Michele Simionato <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Abdulaziz Ghuloum <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On May 5, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Michele Simionato wrote: >> >>>> Can you state what you mean by "unused libraries" exactly and precisely? >>> >>> I do not know how Ikarus works exactly, but this is how I would do it. >> >> Michele, >> >> I asked about *what* you mean, not how you'd do it. The operation >> you describe may not match what you mean. > > What I mean is that I would like to be warned if in my code there are > import forms > which are ignored by the compiler. More than that, I don't know what to say.. >
