Re: Reintroducing old `defined?' (was Re: Testing availabilty of a procedure)

[Clark McGrew <mcgrew@ale.physics.sunysb.edu>]

>>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:

    >> *** I suggest that we rename the current `defined?' into
    >> `bound?' and re-introduce scm's special form `defined?'.

    Marius> I would prefer to stick to `module-defined?' and require
    Marius> people to be explicit about module issues.

Hmm...  Right now, except for slapping define-module, use-modules and
export on to the front of code, code doesn't need to know anything
about the module system.  One thing I like about the current module
system is that it is non-intrusive.  I hope it stays that way.

Cheers,

Clark