From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Neil Jerram" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Plan for 2.0 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 23:22:17 +0000 Message-ID: <49dd78620901071522g2ac7cb6cueae6933b97e4767a@mail.gmail.com> References: <49dd78620901031038i6f6c678o5cebc21b217374d2@mail.gmail.com> <87sknxoeie.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 1231370561 2554 80.91.229.12 (7 Jan 2009 23:22:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 23:22:41 +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 Thu Jan 08 00:23:52 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 1LKhkX-0006q9-Cv for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:23:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59177 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LKhjH-0002di-Eh for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:22:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LKhjB-0002cj-K3 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:22:21 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LKhjA-0002be-JN for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:22:20 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46649 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LKhjA-0002bT-H6 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:22:20 -0500 Original-Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.158]:50284) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LKhj9-0006Qd-Ey; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:22:19 -0500 Original-Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so3309686fgb.30 for ; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:22:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=YVr5z8ykaD8MItTTMgz9J0A8EmHM/J/uTb0Q5/QnnDg=; b=TtXkv+MXXeXGRB9R5T7dZ/SxX5FPL6LwIrD5O/Wf+OwlYWpweG13ZaoIb+iqcHuj33 lndGRr2UZc+5i1mgL7DD3i982Vsm+IhG5niwNp3ExEZ5Kag4gTG/e6NxkwbKW68fWq1Z oEQpj1Y1vckoH4VFeH62WiZLzO0ET4joyAMRQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=fpi1fxqhHIIa7iBhhk/X3ugim3MMnBJptP+lTR/H9xc06pRTs8BjqW3EigUcqgAbob tcuiQD5ggJJXJ5uErOSURmxhr6BZQRZ9kYf8cdhS6u4xTFms4nNj2w2GLBjgaOP10cf8 phCvIp3V7mrKRiB9cFlMV7vkzuWKp6JBiSacE= Original-Received: by 10.86.84.18 with SMTP id h18mr13753700fgb.22.1231370537435; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:22:17 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.86.74.2 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:22:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87sknxoeie.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Disposition: inline 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:7973 Archived-At: 2009/1/5 Ludovic Court=E8s : > >> One specific query... Although I advocated removing GH before, I >> don't feel 100% confident that that's the right thing for 2.0. I'm >> wondering now if we should instead move the GH code into a separate >> library, "libgh", but continue to provide this as part of the Guile >> distribution. Moving the code out of libguile will still achieve the >> important objectives of (1) reducing the size of the libguile code >> that developers need to look at and work with, and (2) ensuring that >> GH is implementable on top of the advertised SCM API; but keeping >> libgh in the distribution will be a significant help for users who are >> still using GH (who will just need to add -lgh to their link line). > > I never considered it urgent, but I think it should be either completely > removed (as is currently the case) or left in `libguile'. Moving it to > another library would make it essentially worthless since it would make > it incompatible anyway. Why would that make it worthless and incompatible? Wouldn't it allow existing source code to continue to compile and link? Thanks, Neil