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: Patch: New section "Invoking Guile" for chapter "Programming in Scheme" Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:07:59 +0100 Message-ID: <874o5k28e8.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <8CDD0063C9BEB29-FC8-5987@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com> <8CDD0D662A18273-1820-10289@webmail-m029.sysops.aol.com> <8CDD19915ED74FC-D20-21138@webmail-d017.sysops.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1303841335 24954 80.91.229.12 (26 Apr 2011 18:08:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:08:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: wingo@pobox.com, guile-devel@gnu.org To: Mark Harig Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 26 20:08:48 2011 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 1QEmgp-0007PK-I7 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:08:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56918 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QEmgp-0002Ju-1n for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:08:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52894) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QEmgm-0002Je-6n for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:08:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QEmgl-0005s6-4R for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:08:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]:37692) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QEmgk-0005nw-Qf for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:08:43 -0400 Original-Received: from arudy (unknown [78.145.17.98]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484F21F672A; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:08:00 +0100 (BST) Original-Received: from neil-laptop (unknown [192.168.11.9]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965B13801E; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:07:59 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: <8CDD19915ED74FC-D20-21138@webmail-d017.sysops.aol.com> (Mark Harig's message of "Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:49:55 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-Received-From: 80.84.72.33 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:12353 Archived-At: Hi Mark, FWIW, these patches look great to me; I just have two minor comments, inline below. It's great to have someone looking at the manual material with such a careful eye for detail. Just one meta-thing that occurred to me: can we all agree on a value for fill-column, so as to avoid spurious M-q diffs? And, if we can agree on that, is there a neat way of helping people to use it? - some kind of local variables setup, I suppose. Mark Harig writes: > From 80c6fd67b228ea8685def8ca4305bec9cdd98cd9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 [...] > +@item -e @var{function} > +Make @var{function} the @dfn{entry point} of the script. After loading > +the script file (with @option{-s}) or evaluating the expression (with > +@option{-c}), apply @var{function} to a list containing the program name > +and the command-line arguments---the list provided by the > +@code{command-line} function. > + > +A @option{-e} switch can appear anywhere in the argument list, but Guile > +always invokes the @var{function} as the @emph{last} action it performs. > +This is weird, but because of the way script invocation works under > +POSIX, the @option{-s} option must always come last in the list. > + > +The @var{function} is most often a simple symbol that names a function > +that is defined in the script. It can also be of the form @code{(@@ > +@var{module-name} @var{symbol})}, and in that case, the symbol is > +looked up in the module named @var{module-name}. You inserted a comma here before "@var{symbol})}, and in that case". I agree that a comma was needed, but would have put it as "@var{symbol})} and, in that case, the ...". What do you think? > +@table @env > +@item GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE > +@vindex GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE > +This is a flag that can be used to tell Guile whether or not to compile > +Scheme source files automatically. Starting with Guile 2.0, Scheme > +source files will be compiled automatically, by default. Is it useful to say "Starting with Guile 2.0" in a post-2.0.0 version of the manual? I think that expression could be deleted now. Regards, Neil