From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mike Gran Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: The future: accessing vectors, arrays, etc from C Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:12:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20050105041220.21688.qmail@web14307.mail.yahoo.com> References: <41DB2F0C.9050304@ossau.uklinux.net> Reply-To: spikegran@earthlink.net NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1104898400 30661 80.91.229.6 (5 Jan 2005 04:13:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 04:13:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 05 05:13:11 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Cm2Xn-0001d2-00 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2005 05:13:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cm2j1-0000nk-KR for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:24:47 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1Cm2iw-0000mx-GD for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:24:42 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1Cm2iw-0000mj-2X for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:24:42 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cm2iv-0000me-VS for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:24:42 -0500 Original-Received: from [216.136.173.83] (helo=web14307.mail.yahoo.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cm2Wz-0003Fo-Ly for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:12:21 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 21690 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Jan 2005 04:12:20 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=i6GVuiGS+1T6DcdZigVa7msy81pX6nQpIxGboNlwUrW8a36NhXMCGwBlkgFJmTUc3MXcAoq7HW2P6Is+rz8F4Ae0vx2ZGgafqZSw3dRmWd5QwNKqsX9+cRuJ7xNSln8y7d5s5V0DAxRf+qtkVLuaw2wwQ2HjIP+w65aJHhJrfQY= ; Original-Received: from [4.232.132.215] by web14307.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:12:20 PST Original-To: Neil Jerram , Marius Vollmer In-Reply-To: <41DB2F0C.9050304@ossau.uklinux.net> X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:3994 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:3994 --- Neil Jerram wrote: > However, I wonder if perhaps we should have a more explicit and > public > policy on the level of change that is (i) acceptable and (ii) likely, > > from one major release to the next, so that developers know what to > expect? > > What do you (and everyone else) think? > The design goals and expected improvements of 1.8 over 1.6 are unclear to me. I don't track those discussions closely. Every change to the API increases the risk of problems in updating a code base, but, if the reward gained is great enough, the risk is acceptable. I'm fine with these array API changes. They work. If if should be done, do it. But, it would be comforting to see that the API approaches a frozen state as the design goals of 1.8 are met. (If the API is sufficiently different to disallow interoperation between a 1.6 codebase and a 1.8 codebase, it may as well be called 2.0.) - Mike Gran __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user