On Tue, 24 May 2011 17:10:50 -0400, Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> 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 Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
