Adding stuff to the core distro (was Re: Infix syntax)

From: Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net>
Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Adding stuff to the core distro (was Re: Infix syntax)
Date: 08 Oct 2002 22:51:32 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <m37kgsbnvf.fsf@laruns.ossau.uklinux.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: m04rc08014.fsf@hobitin.ucw.cz

>>>>> "0" == Daniel Skarda <0rfelyus@ucw.cz> writes:

    >> This looks nice!  If no one objects by mid tomorrow, I will add it to
    >> CVS.  Have you signed assignment and disclaimer papers that cover
    >> this?

    0>   Thank you. In fact I am quite surprised that this patch went in so smoothly.

    0>     - it introduces new syntax

    0>     - once you use-module and activate-infix, infix syntax is active in all
    0>       modules, not only in module where it was activated.

I was aware of this.  However, we already have modules with the
identical issue in CVS, like (srfi srfi-10).  And we already have the
issues of xxx-options (e.g. (read-options 'prefix)) and, e.g.,
(current-input-port) being global -- which, at least to my mind, are
in the same category.

And, all these issues are somewhat hypothetical until someone reports
them causing a significant practical problem -- I don't believe anyone
has done so yet.

Taking all this into account, I didn't think that incorporating (ice-9
infix) created any new issue.  Also, the nice requirement to
`(activate-infix)' as well as `(use-modules (ice-9 infix)' gives a
strong hint that something global is happening (just like
`(activate-readline)').

On the other hand...  Rob has raised the question of whether we should
be adding things to the core distro that don't strictly need to be
there, so perhaps we should stop for a moment to consider our
principles on this point.

I'm not sure what to suggest, myself.  Seems to me that one extreme is
the Emacs approach - basically bundle everything.  The convenience of
the opposite extreme depends on what kind of package repository system
(aka GUMM) we can create.

Any clarifying ideas, anyone?

    0>   I do not want to undermine my own patch - I am happy it is
    0> accepted, though I was surprised there was no exhausting
    0> discussion (or flamewar :-)

Well, maybe we can have a flamewar now ... :-)

        Neil

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