From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile: What's wrong with this? Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:43:21 -0500 Message-ID: <87fwfvp82u.fsf@pobox.com> References: <4F027F35.5020001@gmail.com> <1325603029.22166.YahooMailNeo@web37906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4F032C41.3070300@gmail.com> <877h17hjj2.fsf@netris.org> <1325687351.71432.YahooMailNeo@web37906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <874nwbs9c4.fsf@pobox.com> <87ty4bfheq.fsf@netris.org> <87sjjvpav1.fsf@pobox.com> <87lipnfeqy.fsf@netris.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1325706217 9425 80.91.229.12 (4 Jan 2012 19:43:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:43:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Bruce Korb , guile-devel@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 04 20:43:32 2012 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 1RiWkD-0007ho-SU for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:43:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52130 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiWkC-0001lc-Qf for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:43:28 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:33645) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiWk9-0001lW-Si for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:43:26 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiWk8-00054c-Gs for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:43:25 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:41387 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiWk8-00054Y-Cy for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:43:24 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04898330; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:43:23 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=4B5UPPrEaOBmhDG/4rOjGcqJiYY=; b=SB/Q8K c4cOxfni2JtDva8qnFk/VoeFilvmDqy3H1agS1qRVDr6s+lo6u6BmSuOzczCc86Q sN8HIXOD9jRy/MzMbL0vwKa5mR0pxkXUOaHpnKsaD9IefePJ2DWldyi85SucAXqL xrOqjDcVlO7jxtWwEE92mrfwP0AGg6QlbXrys= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=giS7KzhrKaV4CdzQX3STjbksUxgHOaPP D9qZSrXiMLvqUTAy7PUulo5gtb0hVPxehjz8fl6eTXlYQ65cSiXNV+HLlAd+W7dE VDvW1eiTH4CcxDF9Sb/ToSiEdLgWLBtFgWNTaQch0DG01StkbH5XwIESGab2HRCB hscPiUwJdAM= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99519832F; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:43:23 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [70.63.131.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 296B6832E; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:43:23 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87lipnfeqy.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:29:25 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5CB19F9A-370C-11E1-AF0F-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 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:13291 Archived-At: On Wed 04 Jan 2012 14:29, Mark H Weaver writes: > Although this is a closer emulation of the previous (broken) behavior, > IMHO this would be less desirable than simply doing (string-copy "foo") > on every evaluation of "foo", which seems to be what Bruce (and probably > others) expected "foo" to do. Thing is, why are we doing this? We know what the correct behavior is, as you say: > Of course, I'm only talking about what I think should be done when the > compiler option is changed to non-default behavior. I strongly believe > that the _default_ behavior should stay as it is now. The correct behavior is the status quo. We are considering adding a hack to produce different behavior for compatibility purposes. We don't have to worry about correctness in that case, only compatibility. IMO anyway :) Andy -- http://wingolog.org/