Hi Gregory, On Thu 09 Oct 2008 18:22, Gregory Marton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would prefer to document them, because it's less work, and because the > pointer into srfi-1 would help new users find other tools they might > need. > Can I be helpful in making that happen? I apologize for hijacking your thread, it just reminded me of some things I've been thinking about for a while. I think that documentation would be great, as long as the docs suggest `every' for new code. A patch to doc/ref/api-compound.texi in the "List Mapping" node would be great. That said, the fact that so many definitions are available in a normal Guile session is a kind of problem -- it's useful but not very orthogonal. On the other hand, as Ludovic mentioned, we don't want to cause bitrot in old code, so we can't really change that interface. I think that the proper solution to this is to finally allow Guile to deal in other "languages", in the sense that mzscheme does. The default language would be "guile", which corresponds to what we have now. We could implement r6rs, which has a more orthogonal set of bindings. That way we can e.g. have a session without all of the posix API visible from the root module. It will be tricky but doable I think. Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
