Re: Woohoo! My macros are now (semi) hygienic
- From: Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:51:15 -0800
In article
<a4936815-49ab-40fe-944e-3da1cd39014c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you use ``using namespace'', you open the door to future clashes.
When the contents of the namespace change, your program may then fail
to compile, even though nothing changed in your program. Simply, the
namespace acquired a new identifier which clashes with one of yours.
This is only one of many ways in which changes to a library can cause
you grief. Functions and macros can change their APIs in ways that can
cause compilation failures without changing the list of exported
symbols. Worse, functions and macros can change in ways that don't
cause compilation failures, but rather introduce runtime errors. In
extreme cases, changes to a library can introduce transient errors. So
on the spectrum of things that can go wrong when things change, name
clashes are arguably among the least of your worries.
rg
.
- References:
- Re: Woohoo! My macros are now (semi) hygienic
- From: lisp linux
- Re: Woohoo! My macros are now (semi) hygienic
- From: Ron Garret
- Re: Woohoo! My macros are now (semi) hygienic
- From: lisp linux
- Re: Woohoo! My macros are now (semi) hygienic
- From: Thomas A. Russ
- Re: Woohoo! My macros are now (semi) hygienic
- From: Kaz Kylheku
- Re: Woohoo! My macros are now (semi) hygienic
- Prev by Date: Re: Getting list of functions and macros in a file
- Next by Date: Re: is free, open source software ethical?
- Previous by thread: Re: Woohoo! My macros are now (semi) hygienic
- Next by thread: Re: Is there a map reduce implementation in common lisp? like hadoop?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
