frisk versus srfi-1 filter

frisk versus srfi-1 filter

[Kevin Ryde]

In the current cvs, I noticed the recent change to remove "filter"
from (srfi srfi-1) has broken frisk.  For instance,

	guile-tools frisk

produces

	ERROR: no binding `filter' in module (srfi srfi-1)

I guess scripts/frisk can be updated easily enough, but if an
application might be doing something similar then I wonder if srfi-1
could provide an alias for filter somehow, for compatibility.


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

Re: frisk versus srfi-1 filter

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

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

> In the current cvs, I noticed the recent change to remove "filter"
> from (srfi srfi-1) has broken frisk.  For instance,
>
> 	guile-tools frisk
>
> produces
>
> 	ERROR: no binding `filter' in module (srfi srfi-1)
>
> I guess scripts/frisk can be updated easily enough, but if an
> application might be doing something similar then I wonder if srfi-1
> could provide an alias for filter somehow, for compatibility.

Certainly.  And this exposes other latent bugs.

Some bindings in srfi-1 (such as 'cons') are implemented in the core.
Until now, we've simply omitted those bindings from the export list of
the srfi-1 module.

'filter' was recently turned into a primitive, and therefore also
removed from the export list of srfi-1.

The "frisk" script correctly uses :select to explicitly ask for the
binding "filter" in srfi-1.  Of course people should be able to do
this for *all* bindings of srfi-1, which means that we must re-export
all core bindings.

guile-tools frisk should work now.

2003-03-24  Mikael Djurfeldt  <djurfeldt@nada.kth.se>

	* srfi-1.scm: Re-export all srfi-1 bindings implemented by the
	core.  (Thanks to Kevin Ryde.)


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

srfi-6 re-exports (was: frisk versus srfi-1 filter)

[Kevin Ryde]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 514 bytes --]

Mikael Djurfeldt <djurfeldt@nada.kth.se> writes:
>
> The "frisk" script correctly uses :select to explicitly ask for the
> binding "filter" in srfi-1.  Of course people should be able to do
> this for *all* bindings of srfi-1, which means that we must re-export
> all core bindings.

Is this a general rule?  For instance I wonder if srfi-6 string ports
should re-export similarly.  (Below, untested.)

Of course being entirely in the core I don't suppose it's ever
occurred to anyone to use a module at all :-).


[-- Attachment #2: srfi-6.scm.re-export.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 719 bytes --]

--- srfi-6.scm.~1.5.~	2003-04-07 08:05:30.000000000 +1000
+++ srfi-6.scm	2003-05-25 08:36:58.000000000 +1000
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ;;; srfi-6.scm --- Basic String Ports
 
-;; 	Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+;; 	Copyright (C) 2001, 2002, 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 ;;
 ;; This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
 ;; modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
@@ -22,7 +22,8 @@
 
 ;;; Code:
 
-(define-module (srfi srfi-6))
+(define-module (srfi srfi-6)
+  #:re-export (open-input-string open-output-string get-output-string))
 
 ;; Currently, guile provides these functions by default, so no action
 ;; is needed, and this file is just a placeholder.

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

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

Re: srfi-6 re-exports

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

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

> Mikael Djurfeldt <djurfeldt@nada.kth.se> writes:
>>
>> The "frisk" script correctly uses :select to explicitly ask for the
>> binding "filter" in srfi-1.  Of course people should be able to do
>> this for *all* bindings of srfi-1, which means that we must re-export
>> all core bindings.
>
> Is this a general rule?

Yes.

> For instance I wonder if srfi-6 string ports
> should re-export similarly.  (Below, untested.)

Yes.  Please apply your patch.

Thanks,
Mikael


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

Re: srfi-6 re-exports

[Kevin Ryde]

Mikael Djurfeldt <djurfeldt@nada.kth.se> writes:
>
> Yes.  Please apply your patch.

I added a test program too, to exercise this.  And some tests on the
functions, just so it's not a two line file :-).

        * srfi-6.scm: #:re-export open-input-string, open-output-string and
        get-output-string, for the benefit of applications wanting to use
        #:select on the module.

        * tests/srfi-6.test: New file.


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