Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> No, it doesn't work. In the latest `guile-reader', I have a couple of
>> modules that do (part of) what the Awk script in `libguile' does:
>> parsing the output of `cpp -DSCM_MAGIC_SNARF'. I'd be in favor of
>> integrating such an approach in Guile core eventually.
>
> Yes. It would be nice to have a more comprehensive solution for
> documentation, one that can be used both internally and externally.
FWIW, this is the next thing on my radar, once I'm done with debugging
stuff.
Not that that should stop anyone beating me to it!
>> Personally, I would like Guile "core" to be much more modular than what
>> it is now.
Me too. And I think this should mean separate libraries.
> I don't really disagree. In particular, I think this is something we
> should definitely consider as we examine R6RS.
Ah yes, R6RS. I've been following r6rs-discuss just enough to feel
worried about this! (My impression is that there's quite a lot of
change from R5RS, not just additions.)
>> Getting back to `(ice-9 i18n)': I'm strongly in favor of keeping this as
>> a module; I am more inclined to having it in a separate shared library
>> (because it's not useful to everyone) but I wouldn't mind having it in
>> `libguile.so'.
>
> I'm somewhat inclined to think that the scheme-side module is a good
> idea, though perhaps it begs more general organizational questions.
> I'm less certain about whether or not adding small shared library is a
> good idea. However, in both cases, I need to think a bit more.
I agree with both separate module and separate library. If having a
separate library throws up problems, this can motivate us to address
them.
Regards,
Neil
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
