From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Mark procedures Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:29:39 +0100 Message-ID: <87bnb891t8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87vb9ihy6x.fsf@igalia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1446719452 26627 80.91.229.3 (5 Nov 2015 10:30:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:30:52 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 05 11:30:45 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZuHoZ-0008MX-Om for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:30:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59681 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZuHoZ-0005Aq-9E for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 05:30:43 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56292) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZuHo2-000567-G2 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 05:30:37 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZuHnk-0000GC-VR for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 05:30:10 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:36621) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZuHnk-0000G3-MN for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 05:29:52 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZuHnf-0007VK-S5 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:29:48 +0100 Original-Received: from pluto.bordeaux.inria.fr ([193.50.110.57]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:29:47 +0100 Original-Received: from ludo by pluto.bordeaux.inria.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:29:47 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 25 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pluto.bordeaux.inria.fr X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 15 Brumaire an 224 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x3D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ewJJnUjZH+DhjJ6QZecfalcxuBM= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:17981 Archived-At: 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 but never understood whether/why it was considered unfit. Ludo’.