From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Modified load-path proposal Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:37:33 -0500 Message-ID: References: <878xwx5ld2.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87u0fl3wam.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87oe5s51l4.fsf@ivanova.rotty.yi.org> <87ek6njah0.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87r7adf8h1.fsf@zip.com.au> <87vezhbknv.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87u0ey3mph.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <873bmi392j.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87ll091og8.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1131458782 14119 80.91.229.2 (8 Nov 2005 14:06:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 14:06:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 08 15:06:18 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EZU5Q-0006b2-JT for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:04:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EZU5M-0005ka-MT for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 09:04:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EZSjK-0002ZL-Sp for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:37:39 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EZSjI-0002Yr-RH for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:37:38 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EZSjI-0002Ym-AF for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:37:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [207.245.121.136] (helo=mail.agora-net.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA:16) (Exim 4.34) id 1EZSjI-0006tz-Do for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:37:36 -0500 Original-Received: from ttn by mail.agora-net.com with local (Exim 4.50) id 1EZSjF-0000Cu-66; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:37:33 -0500 Original-To: neil@ossau.uklinux.net In-reply-to: <87ll091og8.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> (message from Neil Jerram on Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:22:31 +0000) 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:4941 Archived-At: From: Neil Jerram Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:22:31 +0000 > both interpretations are fine. Yes, but which one did you mean? It seems to me that they have opposite implications. i didn't have any one specific idea in mind. that there are conflicting implications is a signal to retreat (from a design pov) to safer ground. perhaps that is not possible... thi _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user