Re: [d.love@dl.ac.uk: dynamic loading of native code modules]

[Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@giblet.glug.org>]

   From: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>
   Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:34:59 -0500

   Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to a more user-friendly,
   higher-level interface, but IMO we need a sufficiently flexible
   alternate (or lower-level) interface first,

this is the problem: there already was an interface first.  actions to
date are viewed by users as changes to that interface.  if a higher (or
different) interface is required that takes time to develop, that's no
problem.  but don't drop the one that's being used currently.  if the
implementation is to change, the least you can do is to support the old
interface.

the users don't care about the intention.  instead, they just see pain
and put the blame (rightly) on those who did that change.  it is the
users who would typify this kind of change as "rob".

   and in the process we need to come up with a coherent solution that
   includes shared-lib-esque versioning for scheme level modules
   (i.e. via use-modules).  We also need to make sure that our interface
   abstracts the lowest levels enough so that we can work around any
   libtool "issues".  I have a good idea of how I think most of this
   should look, but was planning that this wait until 1.8.

you should write down your good idea under workbook/ so that it can be
refined w/ input from all stakeholders (notably the users!).  keeping it
a secret doesn't help.  delaying "discussion" (which is lost in the spam
ridden archives) is not recommended.

thi

_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel