From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: expanding the guile-vm closure to include goops? Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 09:03:34 +0200 Message-ID: <87abj36hix.fsf@gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1210057534 6251 80.91.229.12 (6 May 2008 07:05:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 07:05:34 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 06 09:06:09 2008 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 1JtHEx-00022A-EU for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 May 2008 09:05:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43656 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JtHEF-0004ER-MX for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 May 2008 03:04:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JtHDP-0003tP-Ap for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2008 03:03:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JtHDN-0003sz-O9 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2008 03:03:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55742 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JtHDN-0003sv-Hz for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2008 03:03:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JtHDN-0003fA-4F for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2008 03:03:53 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JtHDM-0002u4-BL for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2008 03:03:52 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JtHDH-00032F-Dd for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2008 07:03:47 +0000 Original-Received: from 193.50.110.83 ([193.50.110.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 06 May 2008 07:03:47 +0000 Original-Received: from ludo by 193.50.110.83 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 06 May 2008 07:03:47 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 31 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.50.110.83 X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 18 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Flor=E9al?= an 216 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEB1F5364 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: i686-pc-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:HMha/oxyMxkL8vIZPh7fXoT6j6g= X-detected-kernel: by mx20.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:7214 Archived-At: Hi, Andy Wingo writes: > We could replace it with srfi-9 records. However I see that there is a > failing compilation test for srfi-9 records in the test suite, > apparently there intentionally, because there is some problem involving > compilation phases, modules, and macro expansion: essentially, the > things that Flatt's paper solves. Exactly. A related message was this: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel/6015 . I had just read Flatt's paper, which led me to think we really needed a variant of `use-modules' to specify modules that are used only at compile-time, for their macros. > But: until then, bringing in SRFI-9 records would break the > self-compilability of guile-vm. ... which isn't much of a problem I suppose. :-) Moving to SRFI-9 looks like a good idea to me. > So another option would be to expand guile-vm to use GOOPS for its > compound record types. I think this is quite a good idea in the medium > term. I'm not sure. I'd prefer to use plain Scheme with SRFI-9 records in the compiler since using GOOPS may not buy us much. Thanks, Ludovic.