From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Vollmer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: 1.5.6: (bound? ) missing from optargs.scm Date: 01 Apr 2002 00:06:35 +0200 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87lmc8pf2s.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017612459 5467 127.0.0.1 (31 Mar 2002 22:07:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:07:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: tell@telltronics.org, guile-user@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16rnUA-0001Q4-00 for ; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 00:07:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16rnSs-0001As-00; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:06:18 -0500 Original-Received: from dialin.speedway42.dip227.dokom.de ([195.138.42.227] helo=zagadka.ping.de) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16rnQa-0000j0-00 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:03:56 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 10077 invoked by uid 1000); 31 Mar 2002 22:06:36 -0000 Original-To: ttn@glug.org In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 28 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 Errors-To: guile-user-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:88 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:88 Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > Curious, what would you do differently if redesigning? > > well, i would hide SCM_MAGIC_SNARFER and require output file to be > specified, omitting guile-snarf writing to stdout in favor of it being > able to manage zonking the output file should the cpp fail in some way > (model after "gcc -o"). indeed, this is what i did before the work was > clobbered by foolish consistency w/ the mal-published past. It was not clobbered, please look more closely at what I did. You keep your '-o' option, and the rest of us gets to have command line compatibility with the snarfer from 1.4. This compatibility comes at very little cost, if you want to call it a cost at all: the user is not forced to switched to a better usage of guile-snarf, he is merely allowed to. I also removed the deprecation mechanism in the stable branch because it partly duplicates the mechanism that we have already. > the macros and what not are fine, IMHO. i'm just grousing because i > find it unpleasant to work w/ coding cowboys (yes mvo that's you) > who break things gratuitously and leave the pieces for others to > clean up, all the while wondering what the big deal is all about. Yeah, I was not being very polite by snatching the hacking of guile-snarf away from you. Your first reply did not sound like you wanted to continue, tho. _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user