Re: Guile foreign object interface

David Kastrup writes: >> I did not mean it as option in Lilypond. I meant it as strategic >> possibility. > > As I see it, it's not big enough that strategic guarantees can be given. > If you need guarantees, you need to invest into the resources needed for > that. Using "The official GNU exten

Re: Guile foreign object interface

Arne Babenhauserheide writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> Arne Babenhauserheide writes: >>> PS: Just saying "it’s a scripting language now" will not cut it. >> >> With an implied "rather than an extension language": that _would_ cut >> it. It would imply LilyPond having to work with a fork of

Re: Guile foreign object interface

David Kastrup writes: > Arne Babenhauserheide writes: >> PS: Just saying "it’s a scripting language now" will not cut it. > > With an implied "rather than an extension language": that _would_ cut > it. It would imply LilyPond having to work with a fork of Guile-1.8, > and possibly encourage ac

Re: Guile foreign object interface

Arne Babenhauserheide writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> To a certain degree one can chalk this off as "growing pains" that >> long-standing users have to shoulder, at least when working with >> development rather than stable versions. > > I’d like to chime in here. When looking at the prospect

Re: Guile foreign object interface

David Kastrup writes: > To a certain degree one can chalk this off as "growing pains" that > long-standing users have to shoulder, at least when working with > development rather than stable versions. I’d like to chime in here. When looking at the prospects of larger Guile adoption, I think that

Re: Guile foreign object interface

Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Andy Wingo >> Cc: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès), guile-user@gnu.org >> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 20:56:09 +0100 >> >> > That's what I'm trying to tell you: there's no aggression. >> >> I understand that different people can have different reactions and it's >> gre

Re: Guile foreign object interface

On Fri 10 Mar 2017 08:38, Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Andy Wingo >> Cc: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès), guile-user@gnu.org >> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 20:56:09 +0100 >> >> > That's what I'm trying to tell you: there's no aggression. >> >> I understand that different people can have different

Re: Guile foreign object interface

> From: Andy Wingo > Cc: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès), guile-user@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 20:56:09 +0100 > > > That's what I'm trying to tell you: there's no aggression. > > I understand that different people can have different reactions and it's > great that you can look through "st

Re: Guile foreign object interface

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > David Kastrup skribis: > >> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> >>> I’m sure we already discussed it and then I forgot, but would >>> anything prevent the use of specific C++ allocators in this case? >>> The STL data structures could be allocated on

Re: Guile foreign object interface

Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > () David Kastrup > () Thu, 09 Mar 2017 00:00:48 +0100 > >[...] rather than [...] fork Guile 1.8 in order to actually >have some dependable functionality to base other work on. > > I intend to maintain 1.8 for the time being. More precisely, i > seek to apply b

Re: Guile foreign object interface

On Thu 09 Mar 2017 19:31, Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) >> Cc: guile-user@gnu.org >> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 18:26:09 +0100 >> >> I’m all for personal style, but I’m against passive-aggressive or downright >> aggressive style. > > That's what I'm trying to tell you

Re: Guile foreign object interface

> From: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) > Cc: guile-user@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 18:26:09 +0100 > > > FYI, I've communicated (and occasionally disagreed) with David for > > many years, and I can assure you that you see something that simply > > isn't there. He sometimes uses such "colorfu

Re: Guile foreign object interface

Eli Zaretskii skribis: >> From: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) >> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:09:40 +0100 >> >> >> As an aside, please keep the tone friendly as is the norm on this >> >> mailing list. >> > >> > Disagreement is not the same as unfriendliness. >> >> I agree. However I found the to

Re: Guile foreign object interface

> From: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) > Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:09:40 +0100 > > >> As an aside, please keep the tone friendly as is the norm on this > >> mailing list. > > > > Disagreement is not the same as unfriendliness. > > I agree. However I found the tone of your messages patronizing an

Re: Guile foreign object interface

David Kastrup skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> David Kastrup skribis: >> >>> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >>> Andy Wingo skribis: > I am not so sure about about this one. I think it's not accurate to > characterize beginning to replace a 25-yea

Re: Guile foreign object interface

() David Kastrup () Thu, 09 Mar 2017 00:00:48 +0100 [...] rather than [...] fork Guile 1.8 in order to actually have some dependable functionality to base other work on. I intend to maintain 1.8 for the time being. More precisely, i seek to apply bug fixes, improve documentation (both me

Re: Guile foreign object interface

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > David Kastrup skribis: > >> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> >>> Andy Wingo skribis: >>> I am not so sure about about this one. I think it's not accurate to characterize beginning to replace a 25-year-old C API (SMOBs) as "churn".

Re: Guile foreign object interface

David Kastrup skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Andy Wingo skribis: >> >>> I am not so sure about about this one. I think it's not accurate to >>> characterize beginning to replace a 25-year-old C API (SMOBs) as >>> "churn". >> >> I think the point is that there’s lots of c

Re: Guile foreign object interface

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Andy Wingo skribis: > >> I am not so sure about about this one. I think it's not accurate to >> characterize beginning to replace a 25-year-old C API (SMOBs) as >> "churn". > > I think the point is that there’s lots of code out there that rely on > SMOBs

Re: Guile foreign object interface

Howdy! Andy Wingo skribis: > On Tue 07 Mar 2017 14:44, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> I think Mark made two kinds of comments back then: >> >> 1. There were suggestions about the API itself, nothing deep: >>

Re: Guile foreign object interface

Hi :) Thanks for taking the time to look at the issue! On Tue 07 Mar 2017 14:44, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > I think Mark made two kinds of comments back then: > > 1. There were suggestions about the API itself, nothing deep: >

Re: Guile foreign object interface

Hi :) On Thu 02 Mar 2017 16:47, Mike Gran writes: > I wanted to make a quick post about the foreign object interface. > This is a bit of a placeholder because I haven't had time to > investigate the interface properly, yet. But I intend to poke at > it soon. > But for there record, there are som

Re: Guile foreign object interface

Hi :) On Thu 02 Mar 2017 16:47, Mike Gran writes: > I wanted to make a quick post about the foreign object interface. > This is a bit of a placeholder because I haven't had time to > investigate the interface properly, yet. But I intend to poke at > it soon. > But for there record, there are som