[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Guile support in GNU make

From: Paul Smith
Subject: Re: Guile support in GNU make
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:56:19 -0500

On Sun, 2012-01-22 at 22:29 +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> Then a bug report: running make check on taday's make from CVS and with
> guile-2.0 from Debian gives this:
> *** work/functions/guile.base Sun Jan 22 22:21:18 2012
> --- work/functions/guile.log  Sun Jan 22 22:21:18 2012
> ***************
> *** 6,8 ****
> --- 6,13 ----
>   bar
>   a b
>   a b c d 1 2 3
> + 
> + Some deprecated features have been used.  Set the environment
> + variable GUILE_WARN_DEPRECATED to "detailed" and rerun the
> + program to get more information.  Set it to "no" to suppress
> + this message.
> I've tried to set that GUILE_WARN_DEPRECATED to "no", but the warning
> persists to stay. Perhaps it would be a good idea not to use deprecated
> features anyway...

Setting that variable doesn't do anything because the test suite strips
out all but a few "known good" variables.

So, maybe the Guile folks can give me some portability guidance.  The
message Guile gives (when I set the above to "detailed") is this:

        Guile used to use the wrong argument order for string-delete.
        This call to string-filter had the arguments in the wrong order.
        See SRFI-13 for more details. At some point we will remove this hack.

and it's because of this code in gmk-default.scm:

   ;; Printable string (no special characters)
   ((and (string? x)
         (eq? (string-length (string-delete x char-set:printing)) 0))

It's trying to determine if the string contains any non-printable chars.

How can I write this so it will work both with older Guile 1.8 and also
with newer Guile 2.0?  Or, should I just forget about trying to work
with Guile <2.0?  Most systems I have access to still have Guile 1.8

 Paul D. Smith <address@hidden>          Find some GNU make tips at:            
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]