Thanks Andy! Sneek is much happer now.
-Dale
-From: "Andy Wingo"
To: dsm...@roadrunner.com
Cc: "guile-devel@gnu.org"
Sent: Wednesday January 15 2020 2:59:53PM
Subject: Re: %module-public-interface
On Wed 15
On Wed 15 Jan 2020 07:50, dsm...@roadrunner.com writes:
> I'm porting some old code to 3.0 and I've come across this:
>
> (define-module (bobotpp bot))
>
> (set-module-uses! %module-public-interface
>
> (list (module-ref (
(Sorry for the non-plain-test formatting, haven't the new mailer
interface from Spectrum yet. Ugh.)
I'm porting some old code to 3.0 and I've come across this:
(define-module (bobotpp bot))
(set-module-uses! %module-public-interface
(list (modu
On Sat 15 May 2010 22:32, Ian Hulin writes:
> Please can you confirm that module-export-all! will be supplied in Guile
> V2.0.
Yep, it's in git.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
e (mod, ly_symbol2scm ("%module-public-interface"),
mod);
--8<---cut here---end--->8---
Solution: do something like:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
#ifdef HAVE_SCM_S
Hi Ian,
On Fri 02 Apr 2010 02:11, Ian Hulin writes:
> On 30/03/10 22:52, Ludovic � wrote:
>>
>> Lilypond does:
>>
>> --8<---cut here---start->8---
>>mod = scm_call_0 (maker);
>>scm_module_define (
Hi,
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Ian Hulin wrote:
[...]
>> I'm not the ReleaseMeister for Lilypond; you'll get a better picture by
>> talking to Graham Percival (gra...@percival-music.ca).
>>
>> But FWIW it looks like we're on our few last development releases be
le version after V2.14, but again, mileage may vary if
> you talk to more experienced Lilypond people.
Is Guile 2.0 already released?
I think it makes sense to forget about guile 2.0 for the 2.14 release,
and require 2.0 for the 2.16 release. We could scrap lots of hairy GC
code if we could mov
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 11:50:08AM -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> On 2010-04-02, Ian Hulin wrote:
> >
> > Graham, Vincent, is it worth opening a tracker to capture
ITYM Valentin.
> > forward-compatibility issues with Guile?
>
> We already have one (sort of):
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond
adapt to these stricter
guidelines, or Guile will loosen its policy with respect to (if ...)
statements.
> 4. We've already seen the %module-public-interface thing in the Lily
> C++. There's probably more smelly stuff lurking in the C++
> interface, which won't surface un
t any
problem. But it seems that the %module-public-interface is used
explicitly, at least by texmacs and lilypond.
How do they use it?
Linking to the evil empire:
http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%25module-public-interface&sbtn=Search
http://www.goog
e.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%25module-public-interface&sbtn=Search
>>> http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%25module-public-interface+lang%3Ac%2B%2B&sbtn=Search
>>
>> Lilypond does:
>>
>> --8<---cut here---
Hi Ludovic,
On 30/03/10 22:52, Ludovic � wrote:
Hello,
Andy Wingo writes:
On Tue 30 Mar 2010 22:56, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I'm pretty sure that the submodule thing can be changed without any
problem. But it seems that the %module-public-interface is used
explicitl
On Tue 30 Mar 2010 23:52, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>> And we could add a ‘public-interface’ slot to ‘module-type’ and have
>>> ‘module-public-interface’ and ‘set-module-public-interface!’ refer to
>>> it; for backward compatibility we’d also initial
Hello,
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Tue 30 Mar 2010 22:56, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>>> I'm pretty sure that the submodule thing can be changed without any
>>> problem. But it seems that the %module-public-interface is used
>>> explicitly, at le
Andy Wingo writes:
> FWIW, amusingly threaded against a mail I sent 2.5 years ago:
Yeah, well, I was assuming people didn’t do such nasty things as
Lilypond does. :-)
Ludo’.
On Tue 30 Mar 2010 22:56, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> I'm pretty sure that the submodule thing can be changed without any
>> problem. But it seems that the %module-public-interface is used
>> explicitly, at least by texmacs and lilypond.
>
> How do they
FWIW, amusingly threaded against a mail I sent 2.5 years ago:
On Fri 10 Aug 2007 16:54, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hey!
>
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> Currently the public interface of a module is bound to a symbol in the
>> module, %module-public-interface.
Howdy!
Andy Wingo writes:
> Do a (module-ref (resolve-module '(ice-9)) 'threads)
> sometime.
That’s the hierarchical naming scheme, not related to
%module-public-interface but probably worth a discussion.
> I'm pretty sure that the submodule thing can be changed witho
Hello,
As you might well know, in every module that actually has a public
interface (most all of them), there is an extra symbol bound in that
module: %module-public-interface. It references, um, the public
interface.
Also in every module that has submodules, like (language tree-il) and
Hey!
Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Currently the public interface of a module is bound to a symbol in the
> module, %module-public-interface. This is a bit silly, as modules are
> record types anyway; why not just add another field in the module struct
> for thi
Hello all,
Currently the public interface of a module is bound to a symbol in the
module, %module-public-interface. This is a bit silly, as modules are
record types anyway; why not just add another field in the module struct
for this kind of metadata? Suggest doing so in 1.9.
Regards,
Andy
Why is module-public-interface not implemented as a slot in the module
structure? Right now, you get very odd behavior if you define a module A
which uses module B, but doesn't define %module-public-interface.
The %module-public-interface of module A is then aliased to the
%public-inte
23 matches
Mail list logo
