Hello Mikael, A pleasure to see you around!
On Mon 22 Oct 2012 01:11, Mikael Djurfeldt <mik...@djurfeldt.com> 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 -- http://wingolog.org/
