From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user,gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Killing off scm_init_guile for Guile 2.0 ? Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:49:51 +0000 Message-ID: <49dd78620901221749v6c043580wd1d9cacf0d0df660@mail.gmail.com> References: <49dd78620901151530o66a2641ax47e526d15fc09faf@mail.gmail.com> <3ae3aa420901151959r472fe441k2437dc0d45639dec@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1232675405 364 80.91.229.12 (23 Jan 2009 01:50:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:50:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Guile User , guile-devel To: linasvepstas@gmail.com Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 23 02:51:18 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LQBCY-0002Ul-8a for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:51:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37227 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LQBBG-00052R-Ui for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:49:58 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LQBBC-00051A-Iq for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:49:54 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LQBBC-00050O-28 for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:49:54 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55095 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LQBBB-00050I-TN; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:49:53 -0500 Original-Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.158]:48944) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LQBBB-0000AK-Dg; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:49:53 -0500 Original-Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so2460065fgb.30 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:49:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.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=idKwKDzAmM0yXj3tS15JH7ytGPzkL58HJYBur5a+EwM=; b=QXGhM3TLQHCdZl66epIIkmJAP4BRl4zV3fS0WmsNCzmaUGTS72O8aiesvner1CSsYJ 9yXffXGjQ6NWoWOwR71BV/2EP5pztB+tejmjKCEtONXwXoFoVx7OkBDArtrmv9WT2lJI YBhAiWcXph1xZaOhJRFGy1iWNYSNqivbbd4Rs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Ywu8XU2sdlbXuCW051rQAzFhlSCg7ddBaWKZksr/VT40VN9AcXmzScEOupwipGW0MB QPVxgntvrufaRJpqPeZoqptvKBV+KTp3AzHQxxEQ254L759L6VTonqjIMWbFOH+6UeWA 3XANpjeQ6+rm/v3trKSiCXi6bZKaf6d25f6Pw= Original-Received: by 10.86.70.3 with SMTP id s3mr2700901fga.78.1232675391406; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:49:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3ae3aa420901151959r472fe441k2437dc0d45639dec@mail.gmail.com> X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:7084 gmane.lisp.guile.devel:8063 Archived-At: 2009/1/16 Linas Vepstas : > I feel obligated to respond, having made all sorts of noise. > > 2009/1/15 Neil Jerram : > >> whether people think that scm_init_guile is really needed. > > kill it. there seem to be perfectly adequate ways of > living without it. Unfortunately, the current documentation > describing how to use guile with threads is confusing. > It is certainly the case that, for naive, new users, > scm_init_guile seems to be the easiest way to > get guile going in a thread. This makes it a popular > choice. Its not until you dig in deeply, and discover > how guile actually works (and then think about it a bit), > that you discover that perhaps scm_init_guile wasn't > the right choice. And then you have to refactor your > code ... possibly in large ways ... > > So, the real question is -- how many existing guile > apps call scm_init_guile()? A good handful, apparently. > On the other hand, breaking them by removing > scm_init_guile is possibly a good thing ... it will > probably cause them to fix bugs that were lurking > and waiting to bite. I'm not sure... if the bugs aren't apparent in any way, they're not a problem. If the bugs are apparent, then I agree that moving away from scm_init_guile could be part of the solution. Assuming that we move to using BDW-GC, we can easily keep scm_init_guile, and so I think we should. We should also look at the manual, though, to try to promote other ways in new projects. Regards, Neil