From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Julian Graham Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Merging Guile-R6RS-Libs in `master' Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:32:24 -0400 Message-ID: <2bc5f8210904221132k468ec0d9w19c21f16a16ebeed@mail.gmail.com> References: <873ac1wvs1.fsf@gnu.org> <2bc5f8210904211445n25746dc9rb4755a7e04e8369d@mail.gmail.com> <87skk13yxr.fsf@gnu.org> <2bc5f8210904220755offdb2c1v6256ce4c9f8ba847@mail.gmail.com> <87vdowznv5.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1240425235 26557 80.91.229.12 (22 Apr 2009 18:33:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:33:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ludovic_Court=E8s?= Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 22 20:35:14 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LwhHX-0002oL-IN for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:34:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47462 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LwhG8-0007pr-Ao for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:33:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LwhFH-0007ME-Vq for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:32:32 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LwhFD-0007KH-Tu for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:32:31 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56405 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LwhFD-0007KB-Oo for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:32:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-fx0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]:63169) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LwhFC-0006sN-3G; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:32:26 -0400 Original-Received: by fxm17 with SMTP id 17so129475fxm.42 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:32:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8RYp9lKr6LirlcvajIxd3NAmWywTyawr1cA86EYDZX0=; b=bql7UnlD9R/noIuLA1cmEi3y1M4EHKmRvx94vV3HzTkLSvNeHjVuo0pdgZJIQ/3kDg vJenVQ/+7/NeBc9OV/+53aFfcJwImr/k8so/HdbN1ZMZceXe+PhjdTSDJC/vxArgJT8K DjHy0GrYuExclMJgiHIsZ5+OyGN5UFb5oAtPM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=VciWHRox1WDnP5Q2tNbwc+QYPg8z0gCe5D1mgXGXYnRWmCVtZH8wonic9t+/6GaijA DJGljteZ4hcCkNyrRvs7gEdZ01XirUlBFc2xpXJXVMMgUkSKorAHk2nhfK8TcSov5Nku 9cDfahke/K2LOT9CbpritUQcXBec2pHL+CnZQ= Original-Received: by 10.223.117.1 with SMTP id o1mr26190faq.53.1240425144546; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:32:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87vdowznv5.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:8451 Archived-At: > Cool! =A0;-) > > The trick is to extend it in a backward-compatible way as much as > possible. =A0But now that we have hygiene and `use-syntax' has been > sort-of phased out (Andy?), that should be doable. > > Perhaps we could create a branch so that you could experiment things? *Urk* You didn't mean me, did you? I have to confess, I'm totally at a loss as to how we're going to make versioning work with the autoload system. Maybe we could discuss a little first? In particular, I see some difficulty in terms of determining whether to fully load and evaluate a module form during search. My understanding is that, in general terms, the existing system does the following: 1. Checks the set of registered modules 2. Locates a candidate module based on filename and loads it 3. Re-checks the set of registered modules Is that more or less accurate? The main assumption here is, I think, that the first file matching the module specifier will contain the definition of the desired module. Based on our discussion of ways of representing version [1], that may no longer hold. Regards, Julian [1] - http://article.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel/8172