From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Noah Lavine Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: syntax-local-binding Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:29:06 -0500 Message-ID: References: <874nvw99za.fsf@pobox.com> <87zkdo7uf5.fsf@pobox.com> <87sjjbvs12.fsf@pobox.com> <87sjjaunme.fsf@netris.org> <87r4yurruv.fsf@pobox.com> <87obtyuj4k.fsf@netris.org> <871uqqpfoo.fsf@pobox.com> <87hazmrv15.fsf@netris.org> <87zkdem58t.fsf@pobox.com> <878vkxsvbs.fsf@netris.org> <878vkxmimd.fsf@pobox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1327426171 22546 80.91.229.12 (24 Jan 2012 17:29:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Mark H Weaver , guile-devel To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 24 18:29:22 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RpkBM-0003PO-NR for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:29:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33347 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RpkBM-0000Cz-5u for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:29:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51254) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RpkBF-0000AH-35 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:29:18 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RpkBA-0002Z7-DI for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:29:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169]:57666) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RpkBA-0002Yx-4X for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:29:08 -0500 Original-Received: by iadk27 with SMTP id k27so1585236iad.0 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:29:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=gtP9XXFLlatAte+E6GB2asEM9Hg9OCnaI6xnYrJjAs0=; b=JleN5I9E5juNuWFdCElVdH+G6jDB7OtHd7rD+au0718vNP75m2DiCeBKLMK4A+OHE8 NFeJC/k0cyaVIvZ2A70HXu2J003U4lyZcxUyahMz8iNz/5YxgZFeMdeJ0A4tmzFYqnOw u21W6Mxv253CI8wCt0vTwfMvewTvJE7xDTuZQ= Original-Received: by 10.50.77.226 with SMTP id v2mr3119730igw.12.1327426146911; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:29:06 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.42.158.6 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:29:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <878vkxmimd.fsf@pobox.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: CfsKjLVbFcz0vjFjZFpQequB1O0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 209.85.210.169 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:13661 Archived-At: Hello, >> If we can already foresee the need to deprecate an interface, wouldn't >> it be better not to add it in the first place? > > I don't see the need to deprecate them now, not more than any other > identifier that we export. I think this may be the key to this argument. There are two separate questions being debated as one question. Here they are: 1. Do we forsee a need to deprecate the syntax-local-binding functionality in the future, for instance to move away from psyntax? 2. Is this version of syntax-local-binding the best interface to this functionality? They are related questions, but they are distinct because someone could believe that it is good to expose this functionality but that the current syntax-local-bindings is not the best interface for us. I could be wrong, but I think that Andy answers "maybe, but not for a long time" to 1, and therefore thinks it's fine to include syntax-local-binding. Mark answers "maybe, but definitely needs more thought before we make a commitment" to 2, and therefore does not want to include syntax-local-binding. These are not contradictory positions. (Some of their other positions are contradictory, though :-) ). However, it does make me think that we should discuss the interface to syntax-local-binding more before releasing it (but don't take this too seriously, because I didn't follow the earlier threads much). Noah