[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:50:08 -0700
On 2010-04-02, Ian Hulin wrote:
> 3. There's a restriction introduced in Guile V2.0 whereby dynamic
> use of define, define-public and variants will cause the guile
> compilation to fail with diagnostics. We have these in our basic
> Scheme files (lily.scm and lily-library.scm). These compilation
> failures currently stop Lilypond building altogether.
This is really just a stricter adherence to the Scheme R5RS.
(if ...) can only contain *expressions*, IIUC, and (define ...) is a
top-level definition, not an expression.
But yes, either LilyPond will need to adapt to these stricter
guidelines, or Guile will loosen its policy with respect to (if ...)
> 4. We've already seen the %module-public-interface thing in the Lily
> C++. There's probably more smelly stuff lurking in the C++
> interface, which won't surface until we start trying to use Guile
> 2.0 more.
I think almost everything is fixed on the C++ side now.
> Graham, Vincent, is it worth opening a tracker to capture
> forward-compatibility issues with Guile?
We already have one (sort of):
> Thanks for your feedback so far, Ludo. The other Lily developer who
> has done anything with Guile 1.9/V2.0 is Patrick McCarty
That's <address@hidden>. I don't want any email reaching the wrong
Re: %module-public-interface, Andy Wingo, 2010/04/27