On Tue, 24 May 2011 17:10:50 -0400, Andy Wingo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well why not have the name of "t" be "t" plus some string which depends
> only on the incoming form -- like its hash value. (Or the outgoing
> form; the considerations are different but similar.)
> That way you do preserve the "compatible recompilation" aspect, trading
> off true secrecy, but hey. Oh well.
I am interested to see if you come up with something that preserves this
capability while preserving hygiene. A straight hash of the input form
will not be enough, because the form could be evaluated multiple times,
and each time it would have to have a different identifier internally.
Aaron W. Hsu
--
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
