From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andreas Rottmann Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Why Ice-9? Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:44:44 +0200 Message-ID: <87wrt45tjn.fsf@delenn.lan> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1278704726 24009 80.91.229.12 (9 Jul 2010 19:45:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 19:45:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Noah Lavine , guile-devel@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 09 21:45:21 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXJVb-0004q1-6E for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:45:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41235 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXJVP-00012G-0T for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:45:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47980 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXJVF-00010W-Q3 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:44:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXJVE-0003Om-A5 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:44:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:47368) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXJVD-0003ON-TG for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:44:52 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 09 Jul 2010 19:44:49 -0000 Original-Received: from 83-215-154-5.hage.dyn.salzburg-online.at (EHLO nathot.lan) [83.215.154.5] by mail.gmx.net (mp014) with SMTP; 09 Jul 2010 21:44:49 +0200 X-Authenticated: #3102804 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19fVcElhPJfbQnEl9l2xwhWsUpOrwUw8MdzyZ83qS TNEBZg+VZ5tGxN Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nathot.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42C13A695; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 21:44:48 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from nathot.lan ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nathot.lan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eqHhmJL1ABrn; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 21:44:45 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from delenn.lan (delenn.lan [192.168.3.11]) by nathot.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2FB43A693; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 21:44:44 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by delenn.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B4C224A83E2; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 21:44:44 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Andy Wingo's message of "Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:07:51 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:10639 Archived-At: Andy Wingo writes: > On Fri 09 Jul 2010 19:59, Noah Lavine writes: > >> I am not completely sure this is the right place to ask this, but why >> do many of the module names in Guile start with 'ice-9'? >> >> I can tell you that as a newcomer this is quite unintuitive. > > Heh, I thought that too, once. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-nine > > The idea at the time (1998 or so) was that Guile's module system would > crystallize the mass of Scheme code out there. It didn't happen exactly > like that; in practice ice-9 is Guile's namespace. > > Now, there is a deeper issue here -- a global Scheme namespace is > starting to emerge, and Guile is a bit all over the map. To me it's fine > to have e.g. statprof have the toplevel module, (statprof), even though > it's part of Guile; but in a way I feel that instead of having ice-9 and > system, we should just have (guile) as our module prefix, in the same > way that e.g. ikarus and chez scheme have (ikarus ...) and (chezscheme > ...), respectively. > > It's too late to do that this cycle, but perhaps during 2.0 or for 2.2 > we could provide (ice-9 popen) as an alias to (guile popen), and > eventually for 2.4 deprecate both ice-9 and system. Just a thought, > though... > +1 for that idea from me. Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann --