From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: 1.5.6: (bound? ) missing from optargs.scm Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:42:50 -0800 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87lmc8pf2s.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017625907 13974 127.0.0.1 (1 Apr 2002 01:51:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 01:51:47 +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 16rqz4-0003dH-00 for ; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 03:51:46 +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 16rqvW-0005YF-00; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:48:06 -0500 Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u4-c4c-174.crlsca.adelphia.net ([68.66.186.174] helo=giblet) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16rqtB-00059p-00 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:45:41 -0500 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16rqqQ-0007YI-00; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:42:50 -0800 Original-To: mvo@zagadka.ping.de In-Reply-To: <87lmc8pf2s.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> (message from Marius Vollmer on 01 Apr 2002 00:06:35 +0200) 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:91 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:91 From: Marius Vollmer Date: 01 Apr 2002 00:06:35 +0200 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. what was clobbered was encapsulation of mechanism (internals) which would allow us flexibility in the long run. the general principle i feel appropriate here is that: when starting, start w/ exposing as little as possible; future changes are then relegated to "addition" which is easier to satisfy normal compatibility constraints, than "removal" or "renaming". i felt that this principle was applicable (we are at starting point) because "snarfer from 1.4" was not supported; adding retroactive support is ok if the design was good, but it wasn't, so this was not really justifiable. the cost (aside from listening to me spew on like this) in a decision to expose internals is always latent, which is understandably difficult to perceive. however, i'm sure you know the value of encapsulation because of the `bound?' situation and am very glad to not think about that any more and to watch you DTRT (i do this by watching tasks/TODO -- if you claim some task i won't touch it). 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. i had invested time to weigh the factors (as i learned them), explain my reasoning, and do the work. why would i want to continue when the job was done? more importantly, on the plate is doc snarfing -- are we going to see the same behavioral patterns repeated? more generally, i'm about to open the doors to give more people write privs -- can you set a good example for these people? thi _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user