Re: GNU Guile branch, master, updated. v2.1.0-102-g0f9f51a

[Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>]

Hi Mark,

On Wed 16 Nov 2011 04:58, Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:

> Even if the tradeoff you chose were justified (which I do not concede),
> I believe that you handled this commit improperly.  In your message to
> the scheme-reports list, you clearly described what you did, were honest
> about the lack of hygiene, and admitted your uncertainty about how best
> to handle this thorny issue.  That honesty was admirable.
>
> Unfortunately, those important facts and caveats were not evident on
> this mailing list, nor in the commit log, nor in the comments of your
> code, nor in the Guile manual.

I understand how you can perceive this.  The commit log should have been
better worded, but I was simply elated that it worked at that point.
Understandable, no?  I often update the manual and NEWS in separate
commits, sometimes very much later.  It's not ideal, but I do get it
done before the next release, so please, a little bit of slack, here.

> It was never discussed here on guile-devel

Ah, I thought that it was.  Instead I discussed it with the Scheme
experts over on scheme-reports, and with the bug reporter.  My bad,
there, I guess?

> I think there are better ways to address this problem.  I will explore
> these in another email.

I look forward to this.  Please be sure to address the following issues:

  * Debian upgrading guile to a newer version, without recompiling
    guile-foo which depends on a hygienically introduced identifier.

  * A user modifying a Scheme file from Guile, in the spirit of the
    LGPL, and expecting it to work with program Foo, without recompiling
    Foo (again, in the spirit of the LGPL).

Regards,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/