From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Linas Vepstas Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user,gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Killing off scm_init_guile for Guile 2.0 ? Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:59:12 -0600 Message-ID: <3ae3aa420901151959r472fe441k2437dc0d45639dec@mail.gmail.com> References: <49dd78620901151530o66a2641ax47e526d15fc09faf@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: linasvepstas@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1232078404 20647 80.91.229.12 (16 Jan 2009 04:00:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:00:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Guile User , guile-devel To: Neil Jerram Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 16 05:01:15 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LNftH-0008L0-Gj for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:01:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60782 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LNfrz-0003Ol-Kl for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:59:43 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LNfrh-0003M7-Eq for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:59:25 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LNfrd-0003Ft-6c for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:59:24 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56202 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LNfrc-0003Fg-Os; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:59:20 -0500 Original-Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.249]:56304) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LNfrb-0002Ln-Ja; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:59:20 -0500 Original-Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c38so585826ana.21 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:59:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:reply-to:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kE6Ii/+88B/OjL0Qt30jTDR9J+C8VDFKa1uBS0uuRQ4=; b=mUA56FllzmY5fJ179bXLsF+5FyaDU9IAVP7uaHHpL2Eo/8YaE9Ojy9gDIupsWOa+f3 QQowh5twhW+em2k6AgGNbfK6ngUzsXsC01+DbMJF7CbE7snuOnbOi1IsMNR7nMAaDN6v CQg6TBsAFlwKrTHlWPsrOuaK7Jpte7cFpE5IY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Fz5JWHLQ3DZ3fZfhZASMceLgM2CpRbKJ8hQozJPc/AfaXea6QRnQ1Skn5eE7XzTeSp fbMv+TSTJOyT7bLJaYmnleTK2J0hif+YFq1bXvRK7G/dW6VR1GFFotJpzFwnnGsDiP7w 6Z1+2hYD8Ml4XoW9fPcsiCAbaXYm5PYaR+C38= Original-Received: by 10.100.37.20 with SMTP id k20mr1736733ank.5.1232078352062; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:59:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <49dd78620901151530o66a2641ax47e526d15fc09faf@mail.gmail.com> X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:7059 gmane.lisp.guile.devel:8039 Archived-At: I feel obligated to respond, having made all sorts of noise. 2009/1/15 Neil Jerram : > whether people think that scm_init_guile is really needed. kill it. there seem to be perfectly adequate ways of living without it. Unfortunately, the current documentation describing how to use guile with threads is confusing. It is certainly the case that, for naive, new users, scm_init_guile seems to be the easiest way to get guile going in a thread. This makes it a popular choice. Its not until you dig in deeply, and discover how guile actually works (and then think about it a bit), that you discover that perhaps scm_init_guile wasn't the right choice. And then you have to refactor your code ... possibly in large ways ... So, the real question is -- how many existing guile apps call scm_init_guile()? On the other hand, breaking them by removing scm_init_guile is possibly a good thing ... it will probably cause them to fix bugs that were lurking and waiting to bite. --linas