2008/9/7 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Actually, since the couple of cleanups (or as some on this list like
> to say: 'cleanups') I did, the GC has become a lot more simple.
Actually I did get that impression, from my look so far at your
cleanup patch - i.e. that it is now easier to understand than it was
in the past. But I need to spend more time on it.
Since you mention 'cleanups', I must say that I agree with Ludovic,
that it would have been preferable to post the patch for
review/discussion before committing it, since that is our (majority)
current practice. Sure there may have been a few exceptions, but only
for trivial changes, I believe, and I don't believe that this was -
overall - a trivial change. (I'm aware that it has lots of trivial
bits in it, but I don't think it's all trivial.)
(I also think it's arguable that actually committing to a branch is
more convenient, for author and reviewers, than juggling emails - but
that then leads on to other questions, like what expectations people
can have of the "master" branch, and why we are using Git like CVS...)
> It's
> not really that difficult, you just have to take a more global view of
> the interpreter. The nice thing about GC is that if you break it, it
> tends break all over the place in obvious ways. Usually, you can't
> even get to the 'guile>' prompt.
That is indeed a good point!
> Please feel free to dive in and bug me with questions. I am always
> very eager to help people that will take over code maintenance duties
> from me :-)
Will do, thanks.
Neil
