Hi Andy, On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: > * Bruce's original problem statement says nothing about columns.
That's because I, personally, in my application, didn't put forth the effort originally (~15 years ago) and it's "too hard" to retrofit. > * The eval-string introduced in 2.0.1 does add a #:column facility. > It also adds #:module, #:lang, and #:compile?. It was only recently I dropped support for Guile 1.4 and I still support 1.6. Translation: I may be dead before 1.8 could be desupported. > * All things being equal, writing Guile functionality in Scheme is > better than in C. (Note the caveat, please.) Is Guile intended as the be-all and end-all in application languages, or as an "extension language". It was initially billed as an "extension language", tho, I confess, it's been over a decade since I started using it. > As a corrolary, for it to make little difference to C code what > language something is implemented in, it needs to be easy to call > Scheme from C without creating C bindings. (Note that there is a > difference between "easy" and "familiar"; Rich Hickey's "Simple Made > Easy" presentation deals with this point at some length.) Amen. > The proposed scm_c_eval_string_from_file_line does not allow for #:lang. > It also has a trailing boolean argument, which is something of an > antipattern. Something of precisely what I, personally, needed, with little to no concern over being applied to variations on a theme. It was presented more as a "Here's my problem, here's my hack around it, *please* come up with something better." And you have. Thank you. I look forward to using it and getting that cruft out of my code. > Keyword arguments suit this task much better. Indeed. I certainly agree that that is better for supporting so many variations. >> Our current API encourages sloppiness by making it tedious to do the >> right thing. We provide a very convenient interface to evaluate a C >> string without source information, thus encouraging coders to use that >> even if source information is conveniently available to them. It seems >> to me that we should provide equally convenient means of doing the right >> thing. > > This is true. Amen. "vehement agreement" here. :) Regards, Bruce
