Am Sonntag, den 03.05.2009, 22:09 +0200 schrieb Christopher Roy Bratusek: > Am Sonntag, den 03.05.2009, 19:21 +0200 schrieb Jose A. Ortega Ruiz: > > Harald Hanche-Olsen <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > + "Chengqi(Lars) Song" <[email protected]>: > > > > > >> I think im running off topic but I'm a little bit curious about > > >> rep': why should we maintain a scheme implementation just for this > > >> software? can we just implement sawfish upon other scheme > > >> implementation such as gnu-guile/mit-scheme or plt-scheme? that' > > >> would be a lot relaxing for maintainers. > > > > > > Do these other schemes have modules, rep style? Also, there is the > > > integration with C code to be considered. It's probably not trivial to > > > port the whole package to those other implementations you mention. > > > > Guile has modules that, i think, are functionally equivalent to rep's, > > but the syntax differs (rep module syntax is very close, if not > > identical, to that of scsh/scheme48). The gap could probably be closed > > by some macro definitions, or just a semi-automatic rewrite of jl files. > > > > Regarding integration with C code, Guile is quite good at it (being one > > of its initial design goals), and there exist good bindings to gtk+ (and > > the whole Gnome library suite). IMHO, a port to Guile is perfectly > > possible; but of course it needs some work :) > > > > Cheers, > > jao > > > > a) need someone who takes the goal > b) not before GNOME 3.0, since it comes with GTK+3.0 and I don't want to > waste time with GTK+2 in that time-window between 2.16 and 3.0. > > Chris >
c) well, do we want to give up rep/rep-gtk d) how fast do we get GUILE for GNOME 3? e) what about stuff we might need, but not in GUILE? (Is it beeing added upstream?) Chris
