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: gEDA now supports Guile 2.0! (And an issue). Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 16:38:55 +0100 Message-ID: <87r4zacigg.fsf@pobox.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1326037153 12139 80.91.229.12 (8 Jan 2012 15:39:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 15:39:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: Peter TB Brett Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 08 16:39:09 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rjupw-0004fu-8i for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Jan 2012 16:39:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37832 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rjupv-0005XD-Pw for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Jan 2012 10:39:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49334) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rjupr-0005Ww-16 for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Jan 2012 10:39:04 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rjupo-0002dL-TN for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Jan 2012 10:39:03 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:63495 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rjupo-0002dG-Ou for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Jan 2012 10:39:00 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08641756F; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 10:39:00 -0500 (EST) 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; s=sasl; bh=dapCBvfVoHNWnxLt0uEkaaqsuYA=; b=ZTtLSm m7iCJTLYwU5ooHhUD3vnDHZadS7eQFmfp0PRCbismeSr5E2goEp7O7lXN5RaWvAr xA7t9E3ZGx3kXVCaZ+vRRFisPsa9DqBH7FxuTeRx4ZAY6Y0VU8z+ENKOLirHEUNa IgD+ZjpVmHzRsba0gEn1VBgiBELstbfVpFs3I= 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; q=dns; s=sasl; b=PDLkwJknAOwLtzkKnaz+cSvXPzND/6if ZIJ2SIv/ICmKWCdOU8geqXcDBn0Wt6Uqt1X90yLZF4Sp2wMlQRyxCNM1OXhrRoZa lcwHlmYT7TFbs7R5RambXONRbs4qaoEpOkdQmKsDnw+BXyblvswzC8X7ckq9Z/G8 cx1Beybh4Ck= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F417A756E; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 10:38:59 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58DCD756D; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 10:38:59 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Peter TB Brett's message of "Sat, 04 Jun 2011 01:26:11 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E2198EC2-3A0E-11E1-B704-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 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:9088 Archived-At: Hi Peter, Sorry for the terrible delay here. On Sat 04 Jun 2011 02:26, Peter TB Brett writes: > I just finished porting gEDA (http://www.gpleda.org/) to Guile 2.0! Yay! > In Guile 1.8.x, scm_display_error() takes a stack as the first > argument. In Guile 2.0.x, scm_display_error() takes a frame as the > first argument. I have re-added support for passing a stack as the first argument. It will produce a deprecation warning at runtime though. > Can anyone suggest a sensible way to support both? I haven't been able > to figure out a good feature test... at the moment I've had to resort to > passing #f. :-( You could manually check the (effective-version)... not so nice, but oh well. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/