Re: [ANN] guile-file-names 0.2

[Brandon Invergo]

Hi Mark,

Mark H Weaver writes:

> Sorry, I meant to give an example of this.  Please see srfi/srfi-45.scm
> in the Guile source distribution for an example of the preferred way to
> override core bindings, such that only modules that import your module
> are affected.

Thanks for the example.  I will make that change for the next release.
Actually, it's good that you mentioned it now because I want to go back
and make file-name-specialized variants of the rest of the core
procedures that normally take file-name strings (e.g. file ports).

I'll admit this wasn't a carefully thought-out strategy.  I was going by
the example in the GOOPS "Generic Function and Method Examples" section
of the manual (where + is specialized to handle <my-complex> objects).
I was having trouble figuring out how to do this such that the code
could be distributed as a module, and that was the only section that I
found that gave any clue.  I missed, however, the "#:replace"
functionality of define-module.

I would suggest that this section of the manual be updated to
demonstrate the preferred way to do it.

I also have no problem with replacing my specialized append and append!
methods with file-name-append and file-name-append! (in fact, that's
what they were originally, before I de-namespaced the method symbols).
It's still early days, so few people, if anybody, will be affected by
such a change.

Thanks for the tip!

--
-brandon