From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Mark procedures
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:29:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bnb891t8.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 87vb9ihy6x.fsf@igalia.com
Hello!
I think we all agree that mark procedures suck in many ways, so that’s
not the problem.
When I ported the old Guile to BDW-GC, I kept them mostly so existing
code that uses SMOB can still work as expected. Of course, 90% of the
time you could just remove them and things would work, but if you wanted
to support both 1.8 and 2.0, you didn’t *have* to change the code.
The GnuTLS Guile bindings support both 1.8 and 2.0; mark procedures are
used unconditionally, and there haven’t been any issues with that on 2.0.
AIUI LilyPond has more stringent expectations, and that strategy didn’t
work out there because the new GC behavior is observable.
I agree with you that we must keep recommending against using them, and
that remaining uses should probably be questioned; I think we can’t
“just” remove them though.
What we need above all is to address LilyPond’s use case. I proposed a
solution at <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19883#23> but
never understood whether/why it was considered unfit.
Ludo’.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-05 10:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-04 10:10 Mark procedures Andy Wingo
2015-11-04 12:01 ` Stefan Israelsson Tampe
2015-11-04 17:01 ` Mark procedures, LilyPond, and backward compatibility Mark H Weaver
2015-11-05 10:16 ` Foreign object API Ludovic Courtès
2016-02-01 22:50 ` Foreign objects removed from ‘stable-2.0’ Ludovic Courtès
2015-11-05 14:46 ` Mark procedures, LilyPond, and backward compatibility Andy Wingo
2015-11-05 10:29 ` Ludovic Courtès [this message]
2015-11-05 13:11 ` Mark procedures Andy Wingo
2015-11-05 14:17 ` Ludovic Courtès
2015-11-06 12:32 ` Mark procedures and LilyPond Mark H Weaver
2015-11-06 13:50 ` Ludovic Courtès
2015-11-06 15:05 ` Stefan Monnier
2016-01-24 8:58 ` Hans Åberg
2016-06-20 10:34 ` Mark procedures Andy Wingo
2016-06-20 12:15 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-05-18 15:46 ` Ephemerons, self-referentality in weak hashtables Christopher Lemmer Webber
2021-06-20 15:01 ` Maxime Devos
2021-06-21 17:15 ` Maxime Devos
2021-09-08 16:18 ` Christine Lemmer-Webber
2021-09-08 20:11 ` Maxime Devos
2021-09-08 20:50 ` Christine Lemmer-Webber
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87bnb891t8.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=ludo@gnu.org \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).