Re: Errors using Guile 2.0 vs. Guile 1.8

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Paul,

Paul Smith <address@hidden> writes:
> To test my GNU make Guile integration I was using guile 1.8 which is
> what my distribution provided.  To test the newer Guile 2.x I downloaded
> the Guile 2.0.3 release and built it and installed in an alternate
> location (/opt/guile).  I compiled GNU make using that version, and all
> the tests ultimately work BUT whenever I use (define ...) from within
> GNU make I get these errors:
>
>         $ cat g1.mk
>         define show
>         (define (show s)
>           (display s)
>           (newline))
>         endef
>         $(info define display)
>         $(guile $(show))
>         $(info after define)
>         $(guile (show "HI"))
>         all:;
>         
>         $ make -f g1.mk
>         define display
>         Backtrace:
>         In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>          162: 5 [catch #t #<catch-closure 1cb55c0> ...]
>          170: 4 [#<procedure 1cb8cd0 ()>]
>         In unknown file:
>            ?: 3 [catch-closure]
>         In ice-9/eval.scm:
>          389: 2 [eval # #]
>          374: 1 [eval # #]
>         In unknown file:
>            ?: 0 [scm-error misc-error #f ...]
>         
>         ERROR: In procedure scm-error:
>         ERROR: Unknown object: #<variable 1cd0180 value: #<procedure 1cb95a0 
> at ice-9/eval.scm:378:13 (a)>>
>         after define
>         HI
>         make: `all' is up to date.
>
> I don't know what this means, or how to proceed with debugging.  The
> same code works fine with Guile 1.8.

The relevant difference is that in Guile 1.8, (define foo ...) returns
#<unspecified>, but in Guile 2 it returns the 'variable' object for
'foo'.  Variables are first-class objects that can be accessed or
modified using various functions.  See "Variables" in the Guile manual
for more:

  http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Variables.html

My guess is that your code that converts the final results into strings
handles SCM_UNSPECIFIED properly, but fails to cope with variable
objects.

   Regards,
      Mark