Re: T1247 - Conditionally do (use-modules (ice-9 curried-definitions)) if running with Guile V2, (issue2219044)

[ianhulin44]

http://codereview.appspot.com/2219044/diff/25001/scm/display-lily.scm
File scm/display-lily.scm (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/2219044/diff/25001/scm/display-lily.scm#newcode34
scm/display-lily.scm:34:
On 2011/02/17 06:50:21, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> Jan recently removed all of the curried definitions that were affected
by this
> conditional (use-modules ...) call.

> I just compiled LilyPond (and the patch queue from my "guile" branch)
against
> Guile 2.0 *without* this part of your patch, and I didn't run into any
issues.

> In other words, you can safely remove this chunk from your patch.

In which case, do we even need lily.scm to pull in (ice-9
curried-definitions) at all if we aren't currying in our code?

http://codereview.appspot.com/2219044/diff/25001/scm/lily.scm
File scm/lily.scm (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/2219044/diff/25001/scm/lily.scm#newcode222
scm/lily.scm:222: (cond
This block is the whole point of the patch and the tracker.
Jan has just re-written code in display-lily.scm so it doesn't curry.
If there's no currying in Lily Scheme code do we need this, or should we
defend against users using currying their Scheme code?

Opinions please?

Ian

http://codereview.appspot.com/2219044/diff/25001/scm/lily.scm#newcode291
scm/lily.scm:291: (primitive-load-path file-name)  ;; to support Guile
V2 autocompile
When we move to generating our own compiled Scheme files ly:load will
need a significant re-write. We will also need routines to do the
compilation and some extra  changes in the Guile initialisation code
This change makes no difference using Guile V1.8 but is only temporary
debug code until Tracker 1349 is fixed, and the code to support
compiling out scheme files to scm/out.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2219044/