Re: First look at Guile Std Library available

[Richard Todd]

On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:03:52AM -0700, Robert Uhl wrote:
> Richard Todd <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > Then, (I was hoping only once every few years), you have to say
> > "Enough!" and break with the past.
> 
> I'm not certain about that--after all, libc has stayed pretty much the
> same for decades.  Heck, we still have gets(), for the truly perverse.

The basis of the proposal was that you'd still have whatever schemely
'gets' we were living with, but it would stay in (std xxx).  We would
be encouraging the new development to move to (std2 xxx).  The C
language doesn't have a similar mechanism to make such a clean break.

We're also presuming there's sufficient legacy code to save that it is
worth saving.  In a few years, when std2 may become desireable, we can
look around.  If there is still very little guile use, we may just say
to ourselves, "why bother?" and make the incompatible cleanups.

At the other end of the spectrum, where we have grown to C-like
popularity, then we will certainly care a lot more about compatibility
than fixing a few warts.

I'm hoping it ends up in-between, where we care enough to leave 
(std ...) behind.  Maybe indefinitely.  Maybe for a couple years, so
people can upgrade old code.  Who knows?  I don't want to argue about
a hypothetical library cleanup for a library that doesn't exist yet.
I would like to put some effort into producing that library.

(also, lets look at our peers.  Python (to take one example) has changed
its libraries over time, and I hear very few complaints.  It certainly
hasn't hurt its popularity)

Richard Todd

pgp_NTmBP1knu.pgp
Description: PGP signature