[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fixing the slib mess

From: Mikael Djurfeldt
Subject: Re: Fixing the slib mess
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:09:15 +0100

Hi Andy,

No problem at all!  In fact, apologies are entirely on my side: I
thought I would get time to hack on this before and during Christmas,
but this turned out not to be true.

Great that you fixed it!  If I have anything to add, I will of course
bring that up.

Now, I'm looking into porting Gerald Sussman's scmutils to Guile-2.0.
I'm aware of an older port by Daniel Gildea but I don't think that
uses GOOPS:

I'm currently wondering if it could make sense to try to make an
mit-scheme compatibility module providing the needed bindings.  In
that way a port could become easier to maintain and maybe such a
module could also be useful for other mit-scheme software.

Again, the amount of time I can spend on this is highly unpredictable... :(

Best regards,

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Andy Wingo <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hello Mikael,
> A pleasure to see you around!
> On Mon 22 Oct 2012 01:11, Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:
>> When trying to use guile 2 for logic programming I discovered that the
>> slib interface is again broken (and has been for quite some time).
> I am very sorry that I did not see this thread before hacking on this
> recently.  Somehow over the past three or four months I just managed to
> drop everything and the inboxes filled without being filtered or drained
> in any way -- and to attack that I decided to just run through
> individual lists in order.  A strange strategy, but it is good for
> honing the "does something need to be done about this or can I drop it?"
> instinct.
> Anyway I picked up something in the user list about Slib, looked into
> it, and then decided to fix it, without having seen this mail --
> resulting in the recent patches to Slib CVS and Guile git.  I'm sorry to
> have stepped on your toes here.  In any case I didn't check it
> thoroughly, so surely there are issues yet to resolve.
>> The implementation of the interface has two sides.  One, the file
>> ice-9/slib.scm, is owned by Guile.  The other, slib/guile.init, is
>> owned by slib.  slib has such .init files for some common scheme
>> implementations but I early on noticed that that the guile.init file
>> is not really maintained.  I decided that it would be more robust if
>> slib.scm incorporated most of the interface so that it would be easy
>> to update it as Guile changed.  But of course slib also changed and at
>> some point others felt that guile.init should contain most of the
>> interface and the bulk of slib.scm was moved there.  As we have seen,
>> this didn't make things much better.
> Yes, in many ways I would like to have the interface in Guile.  However
> it seems that time has shown that it really wants to live in slib --
> probably because that's where people care most about slib.
> At least with Guile 2 we have managed to clean up many of the version
> dependent hacks, by just delegating to a fresh file for Guile 2.
> Anyway.  Perhaps I did the wrong thing in fixing it this way?  I would
> be very happy to commit anything you have.  Please take a look at both
> Slib and Guile from their version control systems, and the recent patch
> about `include'.  Aubrey seems quite responsive in dealing with patches,
> so if there is a change to make, I'm sure we can get it in.
>> *But*, the proper implementation of syntax-toplevel? requires
>> modification of psyntax.scm and adding it to the (system syntax)
>> module.
> Do you have a new patch for this one?
> Regards,
> Andy
> --

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]