From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Remove objprop.c from libguile? Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:09:46 -0800 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87n0x9ldox.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <87n0x2yjun.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017821724 24204 127.0.0.1 (3 Apr 2002 08:15:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 08:15:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: neil@ossau.uklinux.net, guile-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16sfvQ-0006IH-00 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 10:15:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16sfv8-0000ER-00; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 03:15:06 -0500 Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u4-c4c-174.crlsca.adelphia.net ([68.66.186.174] helo=giblet) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16sft6-00008a-00 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 03:13:01 -0500 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16sfpx-0002Zi-00; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:09:45 -0800 Original-To: mvo@zagadka.ping.de In-Reply-To: <87n0x2yjun.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> (message from Marius Vollmer on 20 Mar 2002 23:06:56 +0100) Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 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:285 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:285 From: Marius Vollmer Date: 20 Mar 2002 23:06:56 +0100 > Instead, we should probably deprecate (in 1.8) the whole of objprop.c > in its current form, and remove it in 1.10. Even better! and best if some kind of statement can be recorded on when (and why) deprecation of this is to result in removal. version name can be used if a version is completely specified (at its interface), a concurrent task unlikely to be fulfilled until the moment of release (so sez hw dudes). it behooves us to define 1.6+ feature sets (lists of positive attributes (rather than negative attributes like "no longer has objprop.c")), so that when we say "1.10 for removal" it is possible to correlate further up the chain to "make things better", e.g.: - make things better - provide unified property management ;; also a "feature" - simplify API - add new stuff - remove old stuff ;; bye bye objprop.c - 1.10 - features - unified property management - bye-bye - objprop.c -- 1.10 if we don't record these things more formally than m.l. traffic, some tool will have to dig archives later, led around by a human (blech). thi _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel