Re: add-relative-load-path ?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Wed 25 Jan 2012 13:42, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>>>> What about calling it ‘current-file-name’ instead?
>>>
>>>   > (apropos "filename")
>>>   (guile): set-module-filename!     #<procedure 1546f20 at 
>>> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1712:2 (module val)>
>>>   (guile): module-filename  #<procedure 1546fa0 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:1712:2 
>>> (module)>
>>>   (guile): current-filename
>>>   (guile): set-port-filename!       #<procedure set-port-filename! (_ _)>
>>>   (guile): port-filename    #<procedure port-filename (_)>
>>>   (ice-9 readline): filename-completion-function    #<procedure 
>>> filename-completion-function (_ _)>
>>>   > (apropos "file-name")
>>>   > 
>>>
>>> Though I am responsible for three of those, I think I was just following
>>> established convention.
>>
>> Hmm, OK then.
>
> We can still change it if it's the right thing, but we would probably
> need to do the same with the other interfaces (with the deprecation
> dance).

Right.  Or we could keep both, for those that already existed?  (Just
like some software packages have both “color” and “colour” in their
API.)

> Note that there's also the instance of 'filename in alists, like in
> source properties.  We probably wouldn't be able to change those.

Yes, this one cannot be changed.

Ludo’.