From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Vollmer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Future of ice-9/slib.scm. Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 01:38:03 +0200 Message-ID: <87y83kyzs4.fsf@zagadka.de> References: <878xvpupx0.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <87psoyhan9.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <87u0e8afak.fsf@zagadka.de> <87veyoik74.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <87acg0gvq0.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1132443544 14125 80.91.229.2 (19 Nov 2005 23:39:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 23:39:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 20 00:39:02 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EdcHc-0003Fk-AO for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 00:38:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EdcHb-0007N9-P4 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:38:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EdcHX-0007N4-3c for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:38:07 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EdcHV-0007Km-Hr for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:38:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EdcHV-0007KR-By for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:38:05 -0500 Original-Received: from [213.243.153.37] (helo=smtp1.pp.htv.fi) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EdcHV-0006H5-Fb for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:38:05 -0500 Original-Received: from zagadka.ping.de (cs181072157.pp.htv.fi [82.181.72.157]) by smtp1.pp.htv.fi (Postfix) with SMTP id 749707FC35 for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 01:38:04 +0200 (EET) Original-Received: (qmail 15221 invoked by uid 1000); 19 Nov 2005 23:38:04 -0000 Original-To: Rob Browning In-Reply-To: <87acg0gvq0.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> (Rob Browning's message of "Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:43:03 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (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:5411 Archived-At: Rob Browning writes: > A minor difference regards output-port-width. The version in slib.scm > returns 80 where the version in guile.init returns 79. > > A more significant question regards evaluation. In slib.scm we have: > [...] > where guile.init has: > [...] I'd say that in both cases, and in fact in all cases of overlap, guile.init should win. Having differing definitions is clearly bad, and since SLIB has a guile.init, we should bow to it. Whenever we want to do things differently, we should push those changes into SLIB. -- GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel