* Should guile-3.0 cond-expand guile-2 and guile-2.2?
@ 2020-02-27 7:30 Rob Browning
2020-03-07 15:17 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Rob Browning @ 2020-02-27 7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guile-devel
$ guile-3.0 -c '(display (cond-expand (guile-2.2 "?\n")))
?
Is that intentional?
Thanks
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Should guile-3.0 cond-expand guile-2 and guile-2.2?
2020-02-27 7:30 Should guile-3.0 cond-expand guile-2 and guile-2.2? Rob Browning
@ 2020-03-07 15:17 ` Ludovic Courtès
2020-03-11 2:52 ` Rob Browning
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2020-03-07 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Browning; +Cc: Guile Devel
Hi,
Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> skribis:
> $ guile-3.0 -c '(display (cond-expand (guile-2.2 "?\n")))
> ?
>
> Is that intentional?
I think so, though I don’t think this was discussed here.
The way I see it, it means that guile-3 is a superset of 2.2.
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Should guile-3.0 cond-expand guile-2 and guile-2.2?
2020-03-07 15:17 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2020-03-11 2:52 ` Rob Browning
2020-03-11 13:59 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Rob Browning @ 2020-03-11 2:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: Guile Devel
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> skribis:
>
>> $ guile-3.0 -c '(display (cond-expand (guile-2.2 "?\n")))
>> ?
>>
>> Is that intentional?
>
> I think so, though I don’t think this was discussed here.
>
> The way I see it, it means that guile-3 is a superset of 2.2.
OK, though that wasn't true for guile-2.2 with respect to 2.0? In any
case, it'd be nice to have the policy documented, perhaps on the srfi-0
info page.
At the moment, I just needed a way to write code that behaved
differently with 3.0+ as compared to 2.2, because 2.2 doesn't support
define-module #:re-export-and-replace, and there's no functional
equivalent yet.
For now I did this (I don't currently care about older than 2.2):
(define (re-export-and-replace! . names)
(cond-expand
(guile-3.0
(module-re-export! (current-module) names #:replace? #t))
(guile-2.2
(module-re-export! (current-module) names))
(else
(module-re-export! (current-module) names #:replace? #t))))
And migrated all the relevant symbols out of the define-module form.
Do we think that the norm will be for releases to cond-expand the
symbols for all their ancestors (up to some point)? i.e. guile 4 will
likely cond expand guile-3, guile-3.0, guile-3.1, ... and guile-2,
guile-2.2, and so on?
Thanks
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Should guile-3.0 cond-expand guile-2 and guile-2.2?
2020-03-11 2:52 ` Rob Browning
@ 2020-03-11 13:59 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2020-03-11 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Browning; +Cc: Andy Wingo, Guile Devel
Hi Rob,
(+ Cc: Andy.)
Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> skribis:
>>
>>> $ guile-3.0 -c '(display (cond-expand (guile-2.2 "?\n")))
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Is that intentional?
>>
>> I think so, though I don’t think this was discussed here.
>>
>> The way I see it, it means that guile-3 is a superset of 2.2.
>
> OK, though that wasn't true for guile-2.2 with respect to 2.0?
Oh, but there was not ‘guile-2.0’ symbol, right?
> In any case, it'd be nice to have the policy documented, perhaps on
> the srfi-0 info page.
Agreed.
> At the moment, I just needed a way to write code that behaved
> differently with 3.0+ as compared to 2.2, because 2.2 doesn't support
> define-module #:re-export-and-replace, and there's no functional
> equivalent yet.
>
> For now I did this (I don't currently care about older than 2.2):
>
> (define (re-export-and-replace! . names)
> (cond-expand
> (guile-3.0
> (module-re-export! (current-module) names #:replace? #t))
> (guile-2.2
> (module-re-export! (current-module) names))
> (else
> (module-re-export! (current-module) names #:replace? #t))))
>
> And migrated all the relevant symbols out of the define-module form.
>
> Do we think that the norm will be for releases to cond-expand the
> symbols for all their ancestors (up to some point)? i.e. guile 4 will
> likely cond expand guile-3, guile-3.0, guile-3.1, ... and guile-2,
> guile-2.2, and so on?
My interpretation is that ‘guile-2.2’ is to be interpreted as “2.2 or
any later backwards-compatible version [at a language level]”.
Thus, what ‘guile-4’ will mean will depend on the compatibility story of
4.0 wrt. to 3.x.
Ideally I guess we’d want to express things in terms of minor/major
version (in)equalities rather than plain symbol matches. One can
actually do that with a ‘syntax-case’ macro looking at ‘minor-version’
etc., but that’s inconvenient.
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-03-11 13:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-02-27 7:30 Should guile-3.0 cond-expand guile-2 and guile-2.2? Rob Browning
2020-03-07 15:17 ` Ludovic Courtès
2020-03-11 2:52 ` Rob Browning
2020-03-11 13:59 ` Ludovic Courtès
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).