Re: request reversion regarding scm_i_* removal

2008-09-04 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > After discussion with Andy on IRC and looking for uses for `scm_i_' in > Google's codesearch, I've become convinced that we'd better not make > this change in 1.8 so that we don't break existing code. That means > reverting these commits: > > bc5

Re: request reversion regarding scm_i_* removal

2008-08-31 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi Neil, "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 2008/8/30 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> Nevertheless, the change *will* appear in the next stable release. > > Do you mean the next 1.8.x release, or the first 1.10.x release > (whenever that might occur)? I meant 1.10.x, sorry fo

Re: request reversion regarding scm_i_* removal

2008-08-30 Thread Neil Jerram
2008/8/30 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Nevertheless, the change *will* appear in the next stable release. Do you mean the next 1.8.x release, or the first 1.10.x release (whenever that might occur)? Regards, Neil

Re: request reversion regarding scm_i_* removal

2008-08-30 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello, Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The removal of the scm_i_* functions is an ABI break in the stable 1.8 > series. It should be reverted. (It's a great fix for master though.) After discussion with Andy on IRC and looking for uses for `scm_i_' in Google's codesearch, I've become co

Re: request reversion regarding scm_i_* removal

2008-08-21 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi! Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Guile-gnome does, when registering a new port type, for gnome-vfs. The > port API isn't threadsafe, and also sucks as I mentioned ;) From > gnome-vfs/gnome/gw/gnome-vfs-port.c: > > #define LOCK scm_i_pthread_mutex_lock (&scm_i_port_table_mutex) > #defi

Re: request reversion regarding scm_i_* removal

2008-08-19 Thread Andy Wingo
Good day! Still on holiday, but the train provides a lovely hacktime. On Mon 11 Aug 2008 01:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The removal of the scm_i_* functions is an ABI break in the stable 1.8 >> series. It should be reverted. (It's

Re: request reversion regarding scm_i_* removal

2008-08-11 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The removal of the scm_i_* functions is an ABI break in the stable 1.8 > series. It should be reverted. (It's a great fix for master though.) The "i" always stood for "internal", but let's see what can be done... ;-) Assuming the above, one could say

request reversion regarding scm_i_* removal

2008-07-29 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi, The removal of the scm_i_* functions is an ABI break in the stable 1.8 series. It should be reverted. (It's a great fix for master though.) It breaks apps compiled with older versions of guile 1.8. Guile-gnome is not affected too much -- a couple instance of scm_i_symbol_length (not something