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 17:24:34 -0700 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <878z7rqfrg.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019611554 21300 127.0.0.1 (24 Apr 2002 01:25:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:25:54 +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 170BXe-0005XJ-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 03:25:54 +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 170Afw-0006TE-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:30:24 -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 170AeL-0006KS-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:28:46 -0400 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 170AaI-00070x-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:24:34 -0700 Original-To: rlb@defaultvalue.org In-Reply-To: <878z7rqfrg.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob Browning on Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:34:59 -0500) 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:267 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:267 From: Rob Browning Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:34:59 -0500 Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to a more user-friendly, higher-level interface, but IMO we need a sufficiently flexible alternate (or lower-level) interface first, this is the problem: there already was an interface first. actions to date are viewed by users as changes to that interface. if a higher (or different) interface is required that takes time to develop, that's no problem. but don't drop the one that's being used currently. if the implementation is to change, the least you can do is to support the old interface. the users don't care about the intention. instead, they just see pain and put the blame (rightly) on those who did that change. it is the users who would typify this kind of change as "rob". and in the process we need to come up with a coherent solution that includes shared-lib-esque versioning for scheme level modules (i.e. via use-modules). We also need to make sure that our interface abstracts the lowest levels enough so that we can work around any libtool "issues". I have a good idea of how I think most of this should look, but was planning that this wait until 1.8. you should write down your good idea under workbook/ so that it can be refined w/ input from all stakeholders (notably the users!). keeping it a secret doesn't help. delaying "discussion" (which is lost in the spam ridden archives) is not recommended. thi _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user