On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 11:42:49PM -0400, Keith Wright wrote: > > As one who knows nothing, I must ask: > > What exactly changed from Guile-2 to Guile-3 that made this program > that used to work, quit working?
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026, <[email protected]>, wrote: > > I think this one answers your question best: > > > https://wingolog.org/archives/2020/02/07/lessons-learned-from-guile-the-ancient-spry > > TL;DR Guile has gained a native compiler. It is not too long for what it is, namely a FOSDEM talk about Guile-3, but is long as answer to my concerns. I read it anyway, and found my answer around page 27. You said: > Having FFI helper, it seems nobody is sufficiently motivated to > revive g-wrap for Guile 3.0. But never say never (you even could > help to find enough hacking power). I fear I may have mislead you. I was concerned because I read a few posts to this list that seemed to say that maintaining old software obstructs progress and should be prevented. I have no personal interest in g-wrap and will not be not be hacking it. Andy Wingo on wingolog.org writes: > *parallel installs for the win* > users don't have to upgrade to 3.0 until they are ready. Guile 2.2 > happily installs in parallel with Guile 3.0. This takes care of my concern. The Guile people understand the problem and have a plan. Guile-2 and Guile-3 should be packaged sepatately (e.g. for apt-get). > Someone (TM) has to "rewire" bindings lest they die. I gather that g-wrap did something cheesy to access storage outside of Scheme. It is not a change to the Guile-Scheme language that causes the problem. I said: > Would it be possible to load a library or set a compiler option so that > Guile-3 could do it the old way and run these Guile-2 programs? I withdraw the stupid suggestion; carry on. -- Keith
