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, 14 May 2002 03:57:47 -0700 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <878z7rqfrg.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87znztllbx.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1021374215 32547 127.0.0.1 (14 May 2002 11:03:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 11:03:35 +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 177a5f-0008Sp-00 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 13:03:35 +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 177a5A-0000Yl-00; Tue, 14 May 2002 07:03:04 -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 177a3t-0000VL-00; Tue, 14 May 2002 07:01:46 -0400 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 177a03-0000H2-00; Tue, 14 May 2002 03:57:47 -0700 Original-To: rlb@defaultvalue.org In-Reply-To: <87znztllbx.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob Browning on Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:25:22 -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:414 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:414 From: Rob Browning Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:25:22 -0500 BTW: have you read workbook/bugs/versioning-of-extensions? It's not nearly complete, but it's what I've had time to write down as yet. it looks like a plan to just implement something and throw it against the wall to see if it sticks. in particular, having the interface number encoded in the name doesn't sound like fun for anyone. the proposal is not detailed enough to be taken seriously. when you say "One fairly simple possibility that *might* work ..." there is a lot of room for mis-design, mis-implementation and mis-understanding. perhaps what is there can be filled out w/ some use-cases that show how the design holds up to both normal use and weird boundary conditions (don't forget to handle ignorant non-compliance). i've just claimed "write modules/arch-survey.text" from TODO and should be checking in something in the next day or so. probably you can get some ideas from there. another example to look at: i just noticed in guile-rgx-ctax there are PLUGIN subdirectories, w/ simple interface-definition directives. thi _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user