From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Deprecation question - is proposed code-change back-portable to V1.8.7? Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:50:13 +0200 Message-ID: <87ehn3i52i.fsf@pobox.com> References: <874no3hrnc.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1345369834 21493 80.91.229.3 (19 Aug 2012 09:50:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:50:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 19 11:50:32 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T329N-0003oO-Vv for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:50:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41266 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T329M-0001Bl-Bd for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 05:50:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53332) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T329I-0001Bg-3F for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 05:50:24 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T329H-0005mF-6F for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 05:50:24 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:44178 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T329H-0005mB-1w; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 05:50:23 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A9F0ABA7; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 05:50:21 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=D0VDYfoJ7bi3 bAqLtS6hnNh7H0w=; b=vOV1zwLCSWiJr2k8+MKHCvOh2v8RuhDho/5HBi+KmJQn N3tPT3esvTbnA4lMvp1Ct/y1kJ8nVnJD0yMC2ru4+XrtgHaFQEh38oIUdet63vDA OE0JyPCs104eQ9UgbnrlpStZM86kL9eR5/O/ueihPpk2g2exywVqT8v7LayyoGI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=lJYTfg l4g/8ce2PiS6ahy3QfR9NDTs3FdcBkYxsniNXKT5XWqImf++3uezd7hxWhZZ+OND RUQEAic+m5A8zDSaIMzG3QrQyMfN4xAr7ZKAvYjUW7GSIWQ9J5g8lIpMaoibPO0Q UXGo/W2njA+RDTzkhIUhJegZ5Tes7R1d95q8U= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9ABABA6; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 05:50:21 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [89.131.176.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E4D7ABA5; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 05:50:20 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <874no3hrnc.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:51:03 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4A18CB1C-E9E3-11E1-AF00-11610E5B5709-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 208.72.237.25 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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 Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:9556 Archived-At: On Thu 16 Aug 2012 15:51, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: >> and if so, does Guile 1.8.7 do exactly the same as Guile 2.06? > > Yes, but unfortunately, =E2=80=98scm_module_variable=E2=80=99 didn=E2=80= =99t exist in Guile > 1.8. So you=E2=80=99ll have to #ifdef to use one or the other. Better to just define scm_module_variable in guile 1.8: #if defined (SCM_MAJOR_VERSION) && (SCM_MAJOR_VERSION < 2) SCM scm_module_variable (SCM module, SCM sym) { return scm_sym2var (sym, scm_module_lookup_closure (module), SCM_BOOL_F); } #endif Cheers, Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/