Will it not inline "(not-inline x)" and then peval it to x? What are you trying
to avoid? I am out on very deep water here, now I am just genuinely curious :D
--
Linus Björnstam
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020, at 08:36, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
> No even if you have cross module inlining you will s
No even if you have cross module inlining you will still be able to tell i
a module will allow inlining or not else you will break quite a lot of nice
scheme idioms.
This means that this is indeed future proof.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:50 PM Linus Björnstam <
linus.bjorns...@veryfast.biz> wrote:
If guile ever gets cross-module Inlining in even the simplest form, this will
break. This kind of inlining is probably the most secure one to rely on ever
(my for loops rely on it, for example). A more future proof option is maybe to
(set! ...) A variable within the same module, which makes it i
Hi all,
Current guile inlines even variables exposed in the module interface, and I
understand that we must live with that and code around it. So here is a few
tips how to mitigate it.
The simplest way is to put this definition in a module:
(define-module (syntax not-inli
