|
From: | Giovanni Piredda |
Subject: | Re: [Texmacs-dev] Overwriting definitions with tm-define |
Date: | Mon, 28 Dec 2020 13:55:06 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0 |
On 24.12.20 12:45, TeXmacs wrote:
Hi, Not all scheme functions were defined using tm-define. The function 'translate' is defined in the glue, so it cannot be tm-overloaded.
(cut) Thanks for the explanations
I do not think that we need a separate primitive for overloaded definitions (as Max suggests). On the other hand, we might want to use different scoping rules in the future. We might also automatically consider a tm-define with a fixed number of arguments as overloading potential previous definitions with different numbers of arguments. Maybe that was what Giovanni was expecting.
I was not thinking about overloading when I asked the question, but only about redefinition. That is, I was expecting that re-writing a tm-defined function would overwrite it (and that I would not notice that a previous definition existed).
Till now I have looked at Guile as to a "magic" that allows me to control the behaviour of a program written in C++ through Scheme procedures---because of this, I was expecting "uniform magic" (i.e. anything is possible).
G.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |