Re: PATCH: assume -s

[Paul Jarc]

Kevin Ryde <address@hidden> wrote:
> address@hidden (Paul Jarc) writes:
>> Making "guile foo.scm" equivalent to "guile -s foo.scm" doesn't break
>> compatibility, but making "guile -- foo.scm" also equivalent would.
>
> Oh, I see, it was explicitly documented, whereas "guile foo.scm" was
> previously an error.

Right.  "guile -- foo.scm" already means something, and that something
is useful.  In this particular case, it's only for interactive use, so
changing the meaning of that invocation probably wouldn't break much
old code, but at the very least, there should still be *some* way to
do the same thing that "guile -- foo.scm" does now, even if it's by a
different spelling.


paul