() l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
() Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:26:46 +0100
Would be nice, though I think it should be decided on a per-module
basis. There are some modules that it may be worth deprecating and
leaving undocumented, perhaps.
Certainly each module will have it's own doc patch.
However, i strongly discourage leaving things undocumented. For some,
undocumented might mean "don't use". For others (who peruse source
code), it might mean "implementation so stable, it's self-documenting".
Better to be explicit: If you want to deprecate something, the
documentation is ALSO a good place to make that clear.
Another benefit to documenting stuff that you want to deprecate is that
the sifting process may reveal bits or techniques you want to keep.
> Besides, the first idiom at [0] is about as concise as the one
> that uses this API; in addition, it is likely to be more widely
> understood than the latter. This makes this API unappealing to
> me.
>
> I'm sorry, i don't follow. What are you referring to as "the latter"?
The ‘accumulate’ API doesn’t lead to more concise code, but it leads to
“non-standard” code, which makes it unappealing to me.
I can understand this point somewhat (what is unfamiliar often seems
non-standard). However, i still fail to understand your sentence above;
do you mean "the latter" == "(ice-9 accumulate)"?
In any case, the API does indeed lead to more concise code, if the
original code that it replaces is `cons' plus `reverse!'. But that's
neither here nor there...
> Hmmm, would it be possible to install (ice-9 accumulate) as is, w/o
> changes, somewhere under ${prefix}/share/guile (perhaps a site/ dir)?
> Would Guile be able to locate and load it?
Setting $GUILE_LOAD_PATH and $GUILE_LOAD_COMPILED_PATH appropriately
should be enough.
OK, i'll give moving the module to ttn-do a try.
thi
