Re: [Scheme-reports] Are generated toplevel definitions secret?

["Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@x>]

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