Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hi! > > "Thompson, David" <dthomps...@worcester.edu> skribis: > >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Panicz Maciej Godek >> <godek.mac...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> 2016-10-12 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thompson, David <dthomps...@worcester.edu>: >>>> >>>> >>>> My understanding is that these symbols have been part of the default >>>> environment for so long that a lot of code would break if they were >>>> removed, so they will be staying for the foreseeable future. >>>> >>> >>> On the other hand, the fix would usually be trivial (just one use-modules >>> clause), and besides I don't think that Guile has ever had a tradition of >>> worrying too much about backwards compatibility. >> >> The Guile maintainers care very much about backwards compatibility, >> from what I've seen over the last few years. > > I think I asked the same question as Panicz when I started using Guile > ca. 2004. The situation of global bindings hasn’t changed since then, > and that’s for compatibility reasons that I very much appreciate as a > user.
What would be possible without breaking backwards compatibility is moving them ino a module which is imported by default, with a way to suppress those default imports. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
