From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Text collation Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:40:21 +0100 Message-ID: <87ods0tf1m.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <877j00cirs.fsf@laas.fr> <87hcz3mqhr.fsf@zip.com.au> <87r6x0qjyy.fsf@laas.fr> <877iyrbxj7.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> <87wt6rxy6z.fsf@laas.fr> <87ac3m2joj.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> <87slhclsj9.fsf@laas.fr> <87mz7kokad.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1161801729 10440 80.91.229.2 (25 Oct 2006 18:42:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:42:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Guile-Devel Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 25 20:42:06 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GcnhK-0007FG-Rb for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:41:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GcnhK-0004IR-81 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:41:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Gcngi-0003dA-Uj for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:41:17 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Gcngh-0003af-5t for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:41:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gcngg-0003aN-VG for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:41:15 -0400 Original-Received: from [80.84.72.33] (helo=mail3.uklinux.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Gcngg-0001MM-ON for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:41:15 -0400 Original-Received: from laruns (host86-145-51-69.range86-145.btcentralplus.com [86.145.51.69]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35F140A97D; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:41:13 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [127.0.0.1]) by laruns (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FDF96F773; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:40:21 +0100 (BST) Original-To: Rob Browning In-Reply-To: <87mz7kokad.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> (Rob Browning's message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:46:02 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:6179 Archived-At: Rob Browning writes: > ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > >> No, it doesn't work. In the latest `guile-reader', I have a couple of >> modules that do (part of) what the Awk script in `libguile' does: >> parsing the output of `cpp -DSCM_MAGIC_SNARF'. I'd be in favor of >> integrating such an approach in Guile core eventually. > > Yes. It would be nice to have a more comprehensive solution for > documentation, one that can be used both internally and externally. FWIW, this is the next thing on my radar, once I'm done with debugging stuff. Not that that should stop anyone beating me to it! >> Personally, I would like Guile "core" to be much more modular than what >> it is now. Me too. And I think this should mean separate libraries. > I don't really disagree. In particular, I think this is something we > should definitely consider as we examine R6RS. Ah yes, R6RS. I've been following r6rs-discuss just enough to feel worried about this! (My impression is that there's quite a lot of change from R5RS, not just additions.) >> Getting back to `(ice-9 i18n)': I'm strongly in favor of keeping this as >> a module; I am more inclined to having it in a separate shared library >> (because it's not useful to everyone) but I wouldn't mind having it in >> `libguile.so'. > > I'm somewhat inclined to think that the scheme-side module is a good > idea, though perhaps it begs more general organizational questions. > I'm less certain about whether or not adding small shared library is a > good idea. However, in both cases, I need to think a bit more. I agree with both separate module and separate library. If having a separate library throws up problems, this can motivate us to address them. Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel