Re: PATCH: scheme-modules.texi (2)

Re: PATCH: scheme-modules.texi (2)

[Neil Jerram]

>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron VanDevender <sig@netdot.net> writes:

    Aaron> I found a couple of mistakes in my original scheme-modules.texi
    Aaron> patch, so here is a newer version. [...]

Thanks; this looks good, but I'm not sure what to do with it because
the 1.6.x and 1.7.x versions of the manual are out of sync here.

Kevin/Marius - any idea what the current position is on resolving such
differences?

        Neil



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

Re: PATCH: scheme-modules.texi (2)

[Kevin Ryde]

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>
> Kevin/Marius - any idea what the current position is on resolving such
> differences?

Myself I'd only been putting fixes for errors of fact into the 1.6
branch, and confining new stuff and tweaks to the head.

(I don't think I've been fiddling with scheme-modules.texi as such.)


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

Re: PATCH: scheme-modules.texi (2)

[Neil Jerram]

>>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:

    Kevin> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
    >> 
    >> Kevin/Marius - any idea what the current position is on resolving such
    >> differences?

    Kevin> Myself I'd only been putting fixes for errors of fact into the 1.6
    Kevin> branch, and confining new stuff and tweaks to the head.

That's the approach I've previously taken too.  However, since the 1.6
branch is still running, and 1.6 currently has nothing on
load-extension, it seems worthwhile to me to apply Aaron's patch to
1.6.  We can decide how to resolve 1.6 vs 1.8 differences later.

So I'll apply this.

        Neil



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