[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Guile release planning
From: |
Andy Wingo |
Subject: |
Re: Guile release planning |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:15:04 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
Greets,
On Wed 12 Nov 2008 11:11, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I think we went wrong in the 1.4->1.6 and 1.6->1.8 transitions, by
>> leaving /source files/ to bitrot. We should have provided
>> guile-1.6-compat.[ch] and guile-1.8-compat.[ch] files for users to
>> include in their source trees, wrapping e.g. the gh_* API, or SCM_INUM.
>> That way their code stays usable, ours stays maintainable, and whenever
>> they decide to port to the new API, they already know how -- it's in
>> their source tree.
>
> Hmm, we have `gh.c' and `deprecated.c', which are kind enough to (i)
> provide compatibility wrappers, and (ii) tell users how to upgrade to
> the new API. What do you dislike about it?
Oh, I think they're great :) But for example, Clinton was complaining
earlier this week in IRC (#guile on freenode, for those that don't know)
about the removal of the gh API in 1.9. I think Bruno did too some
months back. Etc. It's totally reasonable to remove dead code like that
from Guile itself, but at every bump we should push those shims *out to
the user*, so they can have the compatibility shims in their source
code.
> Or maybe you're referring to things like `guile-compatibility.h' in
> G-Wrap? Basically, it allows G-Wrap to use the latest API and have it
> work with the older versions of Guile.
That is another nice option, for those in group (2) who actively follow
Guile development.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
- Re: Guile release planning, (continued)
Re: Guile release planning, Sebastian Tennant, 2008/11/11
Re: Guile release planning, Ludovic Courtès, 2008/11/11
Re: Guile release planning, Andy Wingo, 2008/11/11
Re: Guile release planning, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/11/11