From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bruce Korb Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile: What's wrong with this? Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:30:35 -0800 Message-ID: <4F048CBB.9020903@gmail.com> References: <4F027F35.5020001@gmail.com> <1325603029.22166.YahooMailNeo@web37906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4F032C41.3070300@gmail.com> <877h17hjj2.fsf@netris.org> <1325687351.71432.YahooMailNeo@web37906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <874nwbs9c4.fsf@pobox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1325698254 13509 80.91.229.12 (4 Jan 2012 17:30:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:30:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Mark H Weaver , "guile-devel@gnu.org" To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 04 18:30:50 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RiUfp-0003d4-Qk for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:30:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48543 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiUfp-0005ET-BB for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:30:49 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:37210) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiUfh-0005E6-3w for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:30:46 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiUff-0000iM-Tu for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:30:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-gx0-f169.google.com ([209.85.161.169]:34976) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiUff-0000hB-PO for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:30:39 -0500 Original-Received: by ggni2 with SMTP id i2so12303541ggn.0 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:30:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pz5RSrFLW4T0lYi8gQawv70xoWNKoyT2CpmwxIigtJQ=; b=mALFL2V2sp1T7zDj/I320ihfXJyxqFiMC4UtjcfaHwCepLgP/fLmGX9OSJBq6WNbBi OIM3PnV6OyXSCebbxEwiDZk/raW1ScEEuY0M0hwieeVS1Gw7bstTzvrUkdsub17HNH89 Wv7DwaHuAIr/svgVurT6Y8GHFEAdlwiUCbEUw= Original-Received: by 10.50.17.195 with SMTP id q3mr67763558igd.11.1325698238725; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:30:38 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [10.0.0.2] (adsl-75-0-186-252.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net. [75.0.186.252]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cv10sm113513602igc.0.2012.01.04.09.30.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:30:37 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111220 Thunderbird/9.0 In-Reply-To: <874nwbs9c4.fsf@pobox.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.161.169 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:13272 Archived-At: On 01/04/12 08:47, Andy Wingo wrote: > I was going to propose a workaround with an option to change > vm-i-loader.c:43 and vm-i-loader.c:115 to use a > scm_i_mutable_string_literals_p instead of 1, but that really seems like > the path to perdition: previously compiled modules would start creating > mutable strings where they really shouldn't. Instead, long-standing, previously written code was invalidated with 1.9, even if we were not smacked down until 2.0.1. Just because an obscure-to-those-not-living-and-breathing-Scheme-daily document said it was okay doesn't make it okay to those whacked by it. I would think recompiling should not be a great burden, *ESPECIALLY* given that it is a recent invention and therefore likely to have some initial issues that need dealing with. Like this, for example.