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: [d.love@dl.ac.uk: dynamic loading of native code modules] Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:09:37 -0700 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019607447 16112 127.0.0.1 (24 Apr 2002 00:17:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:17:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 170ATO-0004Bl-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 02:17:27 +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 170ARj-0005YV-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:15:43 -0400 Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u5-c4a-a-172.crlsca.adelphia.net ([24.48.214.172] helo=giblet) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 170APx-0005R5-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:13:53 -0400 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 170ALp-0006yT-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:09:37 -0700 Original-To: neil@ossau.uklinux.net In-Reply-To: (message from Neil Jerram on 13 Apr 2002 09:50:22 +0100) Errors-To: guile-user-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 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:265 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:265 From: Neil Jerram Date: 13 Apr 2002 09:50:22 +0100 If we can agree this, it would be good to do it in 1.6, for continuity. (Of interface, I mean; module coding would change slightly, as just stated.) would you like to do this rejuvenation job? it seems like you understand the motivation and the implementation approach. More generally, looking back through mailing list history, it's actually astonishing how much support for various stuff that Guile has _lost_ along the way. My overall impression is that we (collectively) have been too glib about this. basically, removing stuff from the interface w/o taking prior use into account has the same effect as forking. you see this a lot w/ newbie designers. other telltale signs are "the new way is better because things *should* be used in this new way" and other circular thinking. thi _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user