Hi Max, On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 10:38:08AM +0100, Massimiliano Gubinelli wrote: > From my point of view is unclear what is the best decision for the long term > future of TeXmacs. Currently I see two reliable alternatives: > > 1) We stick to Guile 1.8. We can just integrate it in our codebase (as we do > with PDFWriter) and strip away all the parts we do not need, so that it is > easier to maintain and compile in Windows and packageable in Linux. > > 2) Follow Guile developers into Guile 3+ and maintain compatibility with > Guile 1.8 as a fallback. On Linux we link against Guile 2/3 and on the other > platforms we use the best alternative we have.
For the moment, I think that we can stick to (1). This does not prevent us from reorganizing our module code and tm-define such that TeXmacs works flawlessly with Guile 3. This would be a welcome effort anyway, since even if Guile drops its support for other OSs, then we might need such a reorganization to move to another Scheme implementation. After all the trouble we went through to make TeXmacs available on all platforms, I don't think that it is a good long term plan to rely on a library that is limited to only a few platforms, especially for a programming language like Scheme. Best wishes, --Joris _______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list Texmacs-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
