Re: Patch: New section "Invoking Guile" for chapter "Programming in Scheme"

[Neil Jerram]

Hi Mark,

FWIW, these patches look great to me; I just have two minor comments,
inline below.  It's great to have someone looking at the manual material
with such a careful eye for detail.

Just one meta-thing that occurred to me: can we all agree on a value for
fill-column, so as to avoid spurious M-q diffs?  And, if we can
agree on that, is there a neat way of helping people to use it? - some
kind of local variables setup, I suppose.

Mark Harig <address@hidden> writes:

> From 80c6fd67b228ea8685def8ca4305bec9cdd98cd9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
[...]
> address@hidden -e @var{function}
> +Make @var{function} the @dfn{entry point} of the script.  After loading
> +the script file (with @option{-s}) or evaluating the expression (with
> address@hidden), apply @var{function} to a list containing the program name
> +and the command-line arguments---the list provided by the
> address@hidden function.
> +
> +A @option{-e} switch can appear anywhere in the argument list, but Guile
> +always invokes the @var{function} as the @emph{last} action it performs.
> +This is weird, but because of the way script invocation works under
> +POSIX, the @option{-s} option must always come last in the list.
> +
> +The @var{function} is most often a simple symbol that names a function
> +that is defined in the script.  It can also be of the form @code{(@@
> address@hidden @var{symbol})}, and in that case, the symbol is
> +looked up in the module named @var{module-name}.

You inserted a comma here before "@var{symbol})}, and in that case".  I
agree that a comma was needed, but would have put it as "@var{symbol})}
and, in that case, the ...".  What do you think?

> address@hidden @env
> address@hidden GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE
> address@hidden GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE
> +This is a flag that can be used to tell Guile whether or not to compile
> +Scheme source files automatically.  Starting with Guile 2.0, Scheme
> +source files will be compiled automatically, by default.

Is it useful to say "Starting with Guile 2.0" in a post-2.0.0 version of
the manual?  I think that expression could be deleted now.

Regards,
        Neil