Re: Plan for 2.0

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

"Neil Jerram" <address@hidden> writes:

> 2009/1/5 Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden>:
>>
>>> One specific query...  Although I advocated removing GH before, I
>>> don't feel 100% confident that that's the right thing for 2.0.  I'm
>>> wondering now if we should instead move the GH code into a separate
>>> library, "libgh", but continue to provide this as part of the Guile
>>> distribution.  Moving the code out of libguile will still achieve the
>>> important objectives of (1) reducing the size of the libguile code
>>> that developers need to look at and work with, and (2) ensuring that
>>> GH is implementable on top of the advertised SCM API; but keeping
>>> libgh in the distribution will be a significant help for users who are
>>> still using GH (who will just need to add -lgh to their link line).
>>
>> I never considered it urgent, but I think it should be either completely
>> removed (as is currently the case) or left in `libguile'.  Moving it to
>> another library would make it essentially worthless since it would make
>> it incompatible anyway.
>
> Why would that make it worthless and incompatible?  Wouldn't it allow
> existing source code to continue to compile and link?

Yes, but only if the existing code is modified to use `-lgh' instead of
`-lguile'.  That'd be "half-compatible".

Thanks,
Ludo'.