Re: Overwriting definitions with tm-define

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.


_______________________________________________
Texmacs-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev