Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-28 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ludovic Courtès escreveu: Yes, fine by me, but no rush. ;-) >>> Do you mean anything specific by "no rush" here? >> >> I just meant I'm not gonna do it Right Now but that's fine by me if >> somebody else does. > > Please see dev/hanwen on

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-28 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
Ping? Han-Wen Nienhuys escreveu: > Ludovic Courtès escreveu: Yes, fine by me, but no rush. ;-) >>> Do you mean anything specific by "no rush" here? >> I just meant I'm not gonna do it Right Now but that's fine by me if >> somebody else does. > > Please see dev/hanwen on savannah. > --

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-22 Thread Neil Jerram
2008/9/21 Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On a slightly unrelated question, are there any pending changes that would > make > the following code obsolete? I've hated using it ever since I wrote > it, but I still > do not know of any reasonable alternative. > > Thank you. Regards, Bruce > >

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-22 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, "Bruce Korb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > SCM expr = scm_makfrom0str( pzExpr ); That's deprecated as of 1.8, use `scm_from_locale_string ()'. > scm_t_port* pt; I wouldn't recommend using this structure as it's in a semi-internal, undocumented state. :-) Anyway, why not

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-21 Thread Bruce Korb
Hi Neil, On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 2:40 AM, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Bruce, and thanks for your input on this... > > 2008/9/18 Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 1. the most retrograde platform must have all the GH capabilities in >> the SCM interfaces for their releases. It se

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-21 Thread Neil Jerram
Hi Bruce, and thanks for your input on this... 2008/9/18 Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > From a Guile-user and not developer perspective, the sequence needs to be: > 1. the most retrograde platform must have all the GH capabilities in > the SCM interfaces for their releases. It seems to tak

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-20 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
Ludovic Courtès escreveu: >>> Yes, fine by me, but no rush. ;-) >> Do you mean anything specific by "no rush" here? > > I just meant I'm not gonna do it Right Now but that's fine by me if > somebody else does. Please see dev/hanwen on savannah. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http:/

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-19 Thread Greg Troxel
Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > From a Guile-user and not developer perspective, the sequence needs to be: > 1. the most retrograde platform must have all the GH capabilities in >the SCM interfaces for their releases. It seems to take quite a few >years for BSD to get around to b

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-18 Thread Bruce Korb
Ludovic Courte`s wrote: Hi, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Do we have a consensus? Yes, fine by me, but no rush. ;-) From a Guile-user and not developer perspective, the sequence needs to be: 1. the most retrograde platform must have all the GH capabilities in the SCM int

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-18 Thread Ludovic Courtès
"Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 2008/9/18 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Yes, fine by me, but no rush. ;-) > > Do you mean anything specific by "no rush" here? I just meant I'm not gonna do it Right Now but that's fine by me if somebody else does. Thanks, Ludo'.

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-18 Thread Neil Jerram
2008/9/18 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > > Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Do we have a consensus? > > Yes, fine by me, but no rush. ;-) Do you mean anything specific by "no rush" here? I think we should do it before we forget that we have a consensus. :-) Han-We

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-18 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do we have a consensus? Yes, fine by me, but no rush. ;-) Ludo'.

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-17 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
Do we have a consensus? Ludovic Courtès escreveu: >> The GH interface was marked as deprecated in >> * Explain GH deprecation & plan for scm documentation. >> >> >> Let's really drop it now. > > Why? It doesn't cost much to keep it, does it? > -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PRO

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-14 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
Ludovic Courtès escreveu: > Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The GH interface was marked as deprecated in >> >> commit a0143ebc24c24198e0dfce9b80f3648feb706226 >> Author: Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Wed Jun 20 22:08:19 2001 + >> >> * Explain GH deprecation

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-14 Thread Neil Jerram
2008/9/13 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The GH interface was marked as deprecated in >> >> commit a0143ebc24c24198e0dfce9b80f3648feb706226 >> Author: Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Wed Jun 20 22:08:19 2001 + >> >> * Expl

Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-13 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The GH interface was marked as deprecated in > > commit a0143ebc24c24198e0dfce9b80f3648feb706226 > Author: Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed Jun 20 22:08:19 2001 + > > * Explain GH deprecation & plan for scm documentation. > > > L

RFD: drop the GH interface.

2008-09-12 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
The GH interface was marked as deprecated in commit a0143ebc24c24198e0dfce9b80f3648feb706226 Author: Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed Jun 20 22:08:19 2001 + * Explain GH deprecation & plan for scm documentation. Let's really drop it now. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROT