Re: snarfer guard macro name decision: SCM_MAGIC_SNARFER

[Rob Browning]

Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> writes:

> below is first usable stab for anyone who wants to try guile-snarf on
> old code.  i'm taking a guess w/ SCM_CONST_LONG (feedback requested).
> cut and paste as appropriate...

Thanks.  I really appreciate your efforts here, though keep in mind
that (at least in my opinion), it's OK for us to require users to
modify their code to work with a newer, documented snarfer in the new
release of guile.  People are going to have to conditionalize things
either way, whether it's in the argument to guile-snarf, or in their
own code, and they're also going to have to accomodate all the other
API changes, so I'm not sure we need to spend too much time time
trying to emulate the old behavior.  Backward compatibility is good,
especially when there's a large community to consider, but I doubt
that's the case here, and maintaining two interfaces has it's own
attendant costs.

In any case, thanks again for trying to figure these bits out.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD