Hi Andy, No problem at all! In fact, apologies are entirely on my side: I thought I would get time to hack on this before and during Christmas, but this turned out not to be true.
Great that you fixed it! If I have anything to add, I will of course bring that up. Now, I'm looking into porting Gerald Sussman's scmutils to Guile-2.0. I'm aware of an older port by Daniel Gildea but I don't think that uses GOOPS: I'm currently wondering if it could make sense to try to make an mit-scheme compatibility module providing the needed bindings. In that way a port could become easier to maintain and maybe such a module could also be useful for other mit-scheme software. Again, the amount of time I can spend on this is highly unpredictable... :( Best regards, Mikael On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: > Hello Mikael, > > A pleasure to see you around! > > On Mon 22 Oct 2012 01:11, Mikael Djurfeldt <mik...@djurfeldt.com> writes: > >> When trying to use guile 2 for logic programming I discovered that the >> slib interface is again broken (and has been for quite some time). > > I am very sorry that I did not see this thread before hacking on this > recently. Somehow over the past three or four months I just managed to > drop everything and the inboxes filled without being filtered or drained > in any way -- and to attack that I decided to just run through > individual lists in order. A strange strategy, but it is good for > honing the "does something need to be done about this or can I drop it?" > instinct. > > Anyway I picked up something in the user list about Slib, looked into > it, and then decided to fix it, without having seen this mail -- > resulting in the recent patches to Slib CVS and Guile git. I'm sorry to > have stepped on your toes here. In any case I didn't check it > thoroughly, so surely there are issues yet to resolve. > >> The implementation of the interface has two sides. One, the file >> ice-9/slib.scm, is owned by Guile. The other, slib/guile.init, is >> owned by slib. slib has such .init files for some common scheme >> implementations but I early on noticed that that the guile.init file >> is not really maintained. I decided that it would be more robust if >> slib.scm incorporated most of the interface so that it would be easy >> to update it as Guile changed. But of course slib also changed and at >> some point others felt that guile.init should contain most of the >> interface and the bulk of slib.scm was moved there. As we have seen, >> this didn't make things much better. > > Yes, in many ways I would like to have the interface in Guile. However > it seems that time has shown that it really wants to live in slib -- > probably because that's where people care most about slib. > > At least with Guile 2 we have managed to clean up many of the version > dependent hacks, by just delegating to a fresh file for Guile 2. > > Anyway. Perhaps I did the wrong thing in fixing it this way? I would > be very happy to commit anything you have. Please take a look at both > Slib and Guile from their version control systems, and the recent patch > about `include'. Aubrey seems quite responsive in dealing with patches, > so if there is a change to make, I'm sure we can get it in. > >> *But*, the proper implementation of syntax-toplevel? requires >> modification of psyntax.scm and adding it to the (system syntax) >> module. > > Do you have a new patch for this one? > > Regards, > > Andy > -- > http://wingolog.org/
