Re: rfc: (ice-9 accumulate)

[Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnuvola.org>]

() ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
() Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:26:46 +0100

   Would be nice, though I think it should be decided on a per-module
   basis.  There are some modules that it may be worth deprecating and
   leaving undocumented, perhaps.

Certainly each module will have it's own doc patch.

However, i strongly discourage leaving things undocumented.  For some,
undocumented might mean "don't use".  For others (who peruse source
code), it might mean "implementation so stable, it's self-documenting".

Better to be explicit: If you want to deprecate something, the
documentation is ALSO a good place to make that clear.

Another benefit to documenting stuff that you want to deprecate is that
the sifting process may reveal bits or techniques you want to keep.

   >    Besides, the first idiom at [0] is about as concise as the one
   >    that uses this API; in addition, it is likely to be more widely
   >    understood than the latter.  This makes this API unappealing to
   >    me.
   >
   > I'm sorry, i don't follow.  What are you referring to as "the latter"?

   The ‘accumulate’ API doesn’t lead to more concise code, but it leads to
   “non-standard” code, which makes it unappealing to me.

I can understand this point somewhat (what is unfamiliar often seems
non-standard).  However, i still fail to understand your sentence above;
do you mean "the latter" == "(ice-9 accumulate)"?

In any case, the API does indeed lead to more concise code, if the
original code that it replaces is `cons' plus `reverse!'.  But that's
neither here nor there...

   > Hmmm, would it be possible to install (ice-9 accumulate) as is, w/o
   > changes, somewhere under ${prefix}/share/guile (perhaps a site/ dir)?
   > Would Guile be able to locate and load it?

   Setting $GUILE_LOAD_PATH and $GUILE_LOAD_COMPILED_PATH appropriately
   should be enough.

OK, i'll give moving the module to ttn-do a try.

thi