Hi Mark,
On Wed 16 Nov 2011 04:58, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes:
> Even if the tradeoff you chose were justified (which I do not concede),
> I believe that you handled this commit improperly. In your message to
> the scheme-reports list, you clearly described what you did, were honest
> about the lack of hygiene, and admitted your uncertainty about how best
> to handle this thorny issue. That honesty was admirable.
>
> Unfortunately, those important facts and caveats were not evident on
> this mailing list, nor in the commit log, nor in the comments of your
> code, nor in the Guile manual.
I understand how you can perceive this. The commit log should have been
better worded, but I was simply elated that it worked at that point.
Understandable, no? I often update the manual and NEWS in separate
commits, sometimes very much later. It's not ideal, but I do get it
done before the next release, so please, a little bit of slack, here.
> It was never discussed here on guile-devel
Ah, I thought that it was. Instead I discussed it with the Scheme
experts over on scheme-reports, and with the bug reporter. My bad,
there, I guess?
> I think there are better ways to address this problem. I will explore
> these in another email.
I look forward to this. Please be sure to address the following issues:
* Debian upgrading guile to a newer version, without recompiling
guile-foo which depends on a hygienically introduced identifier.
* A user modifying a Scheme file from Guile, in the spirit of the
LGPL, and expecting it to work with program Foo, without recompiling
Foo (again, in the spirit of the LGPL).
Regards,
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
