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: Patchset related to array functions Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 10:30:46 +0200 Message-ID: <87mvlix9vt.fsf@pobox.com> References: <7EFBBC0B-FF29-418A-96DA-D1A323B66C95@bluewin.ch> <87twfv0wvm.fsf@pobox.com> <87poqg1rj5.fsf@pobox.com> <87oa5yvlx6.fsf@netris.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1468657906 20201 80.91.229.3 (16 Jul 2016 08:31:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:31:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel , Daniel Llorens To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 16 10:31:33 2016 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 1bOL0S-0003lP-0z for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 10:31:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36439 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bOL0Q-0003AF-VI for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 04:31:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59038) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bOL04-00039m-FN for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 04:31:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bOKzy-0001Jj-Ga for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 04:31:03 -0400 Original-Received: from pb-sasl2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.67]:57115 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bOKzy-0001JE-DI for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 04:30:58 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E74F28ECB; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 04:30:56 -0400 (EDT) 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=2ly0ertM5CddYqb9zjuhJJslDUg=; b=VZEJBP eVFLLtgMdM9ebAqzssgtv5dQHnKovcwSkOvROMzaEnQwkWmnaUuB3/HVG7tH76Du GfhnTdoKATlkWjG4fZ7m+IZ+59+EpP2ZdaEoxaXXcLWY3nKl8ZXQGQhfTdORwLsy E5OuGSwysrJu1Sm1EFWgFy5lxPZpJkMPm3T8g= 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=fu1kwFMBzBKBg+ZO+XfsINyiIrmsQebS Va+L/C//cScx3xOHtm+VqkRaBSWzo0NhUbHZYeD9tJnYs4vXME2+iDb0ZT9MkkUg NkUog7VnoQrhkwvmO2OpHL23jxr7mN1R4avJQqVA42MWbfJc8MfI+M/ka8GC0n/Z AG+ci6YzoAU= Original-Received: from pb-sasl2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15CAB28ECA; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 04:30:56 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from clucks (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-sasl2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D48A28EC9; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 04:30:55 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87oa5yvlx6.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:41:25 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9D39B67E-4B2F-11E6-92BC-28A6F1301B6D-02397024!pb-sasl2.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 64.147.108.67 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:18524 Archived-At: On Fri 15 Jul 2016 19:41, Mark H Weaver writes: > Andy Wingo writes: > >> (2) Can we use C99 in our public interface, or just internally? If we >> use it publically, what should we change? No more scm_t_uint8 I >> hope, besides for back-compat? This patch set does not have to >> include these changes, but we should have a plan. > > Good question! Since Emacs 25 requires C99, I think it's reasonable for > us to also require C99 *internally*, but whether we can reasonably > assume C99 in our public headers is far less clear. Existing programs > that include might have conflicting requirements for the C > dialect options passed to the compiler. Even if there's no conflict, > developers may resent being asked to change their C dialect options. > > Thoughts? Yeah I dunno :) I suppose requiring stdint.h would be possible though without requiring support for new language features. So that's an intermediate point. Since building against Guile 2.2 is an opt-in thing (with parallel installation and all), I think at some point it's reasonable to say "you can stay with Guile 2.0, but if you upgrade you need to support a C standard released within the last 20 years" :) That point may be now; not sure. Andy