Guile bug could affect Windows users

[Mike or Penny Novack]

>
>Additionally, when building the setup.exe on Windows we compile guile from
>source anyway, so applying a patch that has been sent to bug-guile but is
>not contained in any release yet is perfectly fine, at least IMHO.
>
>-- andi5
>
>  
>
Again I am probably making some wrong assumptions. Compiling WHAT? The 
interpreter certainly, "eval" itself, perhaps a few of the most 
basic/most frequently used function definitions. But with most 
"extendable" languages like LISP and its dialects the bulk of the 
definitions available at the start are usually done in the language 
itself. OR, in "compile and go" implementations that makes little 
difference (any that are added are compiled before execution/evaluation 
as opposed to a strict "interpreter" implementation where the expression 
would be reinterpreted every time used.)

Isn't that true of Guile? Some reason to believe that these particular 
erroneous definitions were part of the compile? Even if they were, what 
difference would that make except perhaps speed when being evaluated? 
They still could be overridden by redefinition, yes?

(I hope not confusing people with bringing up matters of how LISP like 
languages are implemented..)