From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Adding stuff to the core distro (was Re: Infix syntax) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:17:38 -0500 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87r8ezgye5.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> References: <87u1jwi903.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1034195257 23713 127.0.0.1 (9 Oct 2002 20:27:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 20:27:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Daniel Skarda <0rfelyus@ucw.cz>, guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17zNQd-0006AD-00 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 22:27:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17zNHR-0003hl-00; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:18:05 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17zNHB-0003WO-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:17:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17zNH5-0003Ug-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:17:48 -0400 Original-Received: from n66644228.ipcdsl.net ([66.64.4.228] helo=defaultvalue.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17zNH3-0003QR-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:17:42 -0400 Original-Received: from raven.i.defaultvalue.org (raven.i.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF52CCEE; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:17:38 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by raven.i.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AC77340E; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:17:38 -0500 (CDT) Original-To: Neil Jerram In-Reply-To: (Neil Jerram's message of "09 Oct 2002 19:15:08 +0100") Original-Lines: 48 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1499 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1499 Neil Jerram writes: > Rob> I not all that concerned with things that require an explicit > Rob> activation. I'm more concerned with any additions to what's > Rob> visible in the core of guile (guile) and (guile-user) at > Rob> startup, and more particularly, how much happens in > Rob> ice-9/boot-9.scm, though to some extent that's an efficiency > Rob> issue as much as a semantic issue. > > But hang on, this is nothing to do with the size of the distro, is it? Right. In this case, I'm referring to the (old idea) that we might want to clean up boot-9.scm. I know that's not what we were originally talking about, but I was just trying to clarify one of my general inclinations wrt additions to guile ATM. > So now I'm confused... should I view your comment "we'd be better off > moving in the direction of a smaller base" as a commit-stopper or not? Nope, not a definite commit-stopper, not unless it was a heavyweight addition (code-wise or runtime-cost-wise) to the startup process or to boot-9.scm. > (Or did you mean "not in ice-9, but something like (tools infix) would > be fine"?) I'm OK with (ice-9 infix), though perhaps (infix-syntax) or (syntax infix) might be better. Also, (and more generally) I'm still not convinced that an a-priori per-topic organization of the module space is a good idea except in cases where it's really clear what that organization should be. For example, I tend to think (gtk) is at least as good as, if not better than (graphics gtk). However, I'd be likely to agree with sub-sections for say (gnome print) (gnome pilot) (gnome vfs) (gnome canvas), etc. I also think that we shouldn't feel too much pressure to use generic names. In this I tend to agree with ttn's practices. For example, unless we were sure we'd come up with the "one true GL interface", I'd be likely to prefer (blarg gl) or (blarg-gl) to just (gl) since we might also have (swig-gl), (gwrap-gl), (super-smart-gl) etc. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org Previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C 64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel