Re: How can I tell guile to shut up? ;)

[Andy Wingo]

Hi!

On Fri 01 Jul 2011 15:04, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> here's the deal.

I think I just read three emails of mine with this phrase in it.
Terrible.  I promise more syntactic variability in the future.

>> (with-fluids ((%current-input-port 'foo)) ...) ?  Probably not.
>
> No, but OTOH, I *think* it would lead to a graceful type error sooner or
> later, as opposed to a crash.

True.  Still, not very nice :)

> The problem I have is that (1) I don’t see how we could migrate the
> existing public fluids to parameters without breaking the API, and (2)
> it’s unpleasant to my eye to have both fluids and parameters in the core
> API.

As an example let's take *repl-stack* from boot-9.  Here's what we
could do:

  (define repl-stack (make-parameter #f)))

and in deprecated.scm:

  (define *repl-stack* (parameter-fluid repl-stack))

Ideally we would change *repl-stack* to be an identifier-syntax like:

  (define-syntax *repl-stack*
    (identifier-syntax
      (begin
        (issue-deprecation-warning "it's dead jim")
        (parameter-fluid repl-stack))))

but in 2.0 that would break binary compat.  We could do that in 2.2, or
otherwise just remove it in 2.2, depending on what the situation was.

So I am optimistic regarding our ability to gradually change over to
parameters, if you are in agreement that parameters are the interface
that we should export.

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/