From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Todd Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: First look at Guile Std Library available Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:52:26 -0600 Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20040103225226.GC518@Richard-Todds-Computer.local> References: <20040102052128.GA16849@Richard-Todds-Computer.local> Reply-To: Richard Todd NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1153162350==" X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1073170840 28403 80.91.224.253 (3 Jan 2004 23:00:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 23:00:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 04 00:00:35 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Acul1-0007sY-00 for ; Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:00:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AcvfF-0003cE-Ay for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:58:41 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Acvdy-0003bM-BN for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:57:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AcvdK-0003UG-9H for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:57:13 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.41.8] (helo=mx20.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.24) id 1Acvap-00032u-RO for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:54:07 -0500 Original-Received: from [66.171.157.251] (helo=Richard-Todds-Computer.local) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AcudB-0004x7-UV for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:52:30 -0500 Original-Received: by Richard-Todds-Computer.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0C5D871A07; Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:52:26 -0600 (CST) Original-To: ttn@glug.org In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:2509 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:2509 --===============1153162350== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DSayHWYpDlRfCAAQ" Content-Disposition: inline --DSayHWYpDlRfCAAQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 05:38:28PM +0100, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote: > From: Richard Todd > Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:21:28 -0600 >=20 > Every time someone does this and contributes it to the > library, the entire guile community gets more efficient. >=20 > this is debatable. a numerical recipe derived from slib (for example) > has potential to suffer bit-rot when slib is enhanced. i see that slib > now has a module system of sorts; maybe you could codify the derivation > methodology (steps to translate code from "slib module" format to "guile > module" format) so that it could be applied to each slib release, to > reduce your project's maintenance burden. Yes, there will be maintenance to do when significant changes to the source material appear. I don't have a really good answer for that problem, since anything but copying and (slightly) modifying their sources conflics with the other goals I have for the project. What I have done, is start a mapping between the project modules and their SLIB sources. I'm not sure, but if I re-sync with SLIB once a year or so, that doesn't seem like too much of a maintenance headache. I may feel differently the first time I actually have to *do* it! For the stuff already written for guile that gets pulled in, I hope the maintainers will either maintain their modules as part of the standard lib, or actively help push their changes into the library at their major updates. This topic is definitely still up for debate.. I have pulled in some SLIB sources as examples of what it would look like, but I have no problem completely changing direction on that issue if guile users think it would be best. Richard Todd richardt at vzavenue dot net --DSayHWYpDlRfCAAQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin) iD8DBQE/90eqa9lhNGIqsRIRAj8LAKCM7zuobgO8Dt+DZK0KdvM3GwI7gACgq4vk QeSfzVJo3xvG6QUk4+fvT+I= =al/f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DSayHWYpDlRfCAAQ-- --===============1153162350== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user --===============1153162350==--