[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: My Guile Wishlist
From: |
Rob Browning |
Subject: |
Re: My Guile Wishlist |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:10:37 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.1 (i386-debian-linux-gnu) |
Evan Prodromou <address@hidden> writes:
> So, while I've been thinking about Guile, I've been considering some
> of the things that I wish were part of the system that aren't. Because
> they're on my mind right now, I figure I'll post them.
>
> 1. I wish there weren't so much detritus in the Scheme interface that
> Guile provides.
There's a plan to clean this up -- presuming you're talking about the
scm_/gh_ interfaces. See devel/policy/names.text. We've also decided
to eventually drop the gh_ interface and fully document/cleanup the
scm_interface. This is a GOOD THING as it takes the status of both
out of limbo and makes it clear where efforts should be spent.
However, this transition will take a while and there will have to be
scm_c_ equivalents for all the important gh_ functions first.
> 3. I wish that when I loaded Guile, I could get a system with only
> R5RS Scheme + modules support, until I started loading stuff. I
> wish that anything in Guile that was an enhancement to Scheme had
> to be loaded with (use-modules).
This has long been a goal, but hasn't gotten a lot of attention lately.
> 4. I wish that I could do this:
>
> #! /usr/bin/env guile
> !#
I suspect some kind of functionality like this, though perhaps invoked
via a different binary name will probably come -- if I recall
correctly, this (or something similar) is what the SRFI wants.
> 5. I wish I could figure out the scm_ interface.
See (1) -- this should be forthcoming as we make the transition and
clean things up.
> 6. I wish that I could add Guile to existing programs, like Apache,
> with those programs' loadable module systems, without having to
> modify the program's "main" function.
As you wish -- see the docs for scm_init_guile in the 1.5.X info
pages, and give thanks to those who figured out the attendant stack
trick(s) :>
> 7. I really, really wish there was a mod_guile. Did I mention that
> already?
Talk to Dale Smith. (Hi dsmith :>)
> 9. I wish that Guile was so good that GNU projects wouldn't even
> think about using any other scripting/extension language.
We'll see if we can arrange that :>
> 10. I wish that there was a project library with everything under the
> sun that you could want in it.
This is an *important* point, but I'm not quite sure how to address it
yet.
> So, let me re-iterate: I love Guile. I use it all the time. But these
> things would make me happier than I am now.
In addition, one looming concern I have, is that we make sure not to
put ourselves in an ugly position because libtool and more
particularly ltdl make it *very hard* to DTRT. You can't
create/install multiple versions of a shared library in a way that
would allow you, even with an explicit path to open the particular one
you need at runtime. i.e. there's no
lt_dlopen_interface("libfoo", 12);
and we *really* need one.
I do have some ideas how to fake this, though -- presuming the libtool
people aren't able to or don't want to fix it. I believe it's the
underlying cause of the libreadline problems people have been having.
--
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