[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: language translator help

From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: language translator help
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 19:32:39 -0700

   From: Neil Jerram <address@hidden>
   Date: 18 May 2002 14:47:24 +0100

   BTW, is there any reason not to sync guile-lang-allover back up with
   the guile-rgx-ctax module?

not in this case.  the changes are mostly documentation (adding README),
style adaptations (using parens for module names instead of something
#/like/this), and similar packaging.[1]

      thi> in the process, libguilereadline and libqthreads will also be
      thi> moved to $prefix/lib/guile/1.4.2 -- the only thing in
      thi> $prefix/lib will be libguile -- and scheme bindings to lt_*
      thi> will be introduced (where it makes sense).  this allows
      thi> `load-extension' and ilk implementation experimentation.

   On this point I'd really like to see consensus (w.r.t. 1.6.x and 1.8.x
   plans) before you proceed.

this is why there is TODO item "write $w/modules/compiled-modules.text".
it's easy to avoid consensus through m.l. rehash.  w/ something written
down, the design and its decisions can be thoroughly vetted (which helps
build consensus).  for lt_* bindings availability, the way to judge that
is to ask if lt_* interface is stable.

       thi> 1.4.2 also back-ports :select and :renamer [...],
       thi> [...] first module built suchly will be guile-doc-snarf

   is it perhaps the case that you are only able to do this because
   you're running with 1.4.x on your own and with hindsight?

i don't know how to answer this.  what is hindsight to some is foresight
to others.  project development train-wreck is easy to predict for the
switch-yard controller but perhaps not for the passenger, conductor or
engineer.  it all depends on your relationship w/ the train(s) and of
course experience.

   In other words, do you think a similarly planned model could apply to
   bleeding edge development?

this is another question entirely!

bleeding edge doesn't usually tolerate planning but for bleeding edge to
stop bleeding, its fruits must be served w/ the wine of planning, else
the meal is unpalatable.  what makes a good wine?

what this means is that if you are project manager at war against time
the enemy, you form both a forward flank and a rear guard, and structure
communication between these groups to be subject to moderation by the
generals back at HQ.  what makes a good general?

   I don't see how you will achieve consensus on 1.4.x directions without
   being subscribed to guile-devel.  So this is a bit too confrontational
   for my liking.

it is my way of retiring to the rear guard, where at least one principle
is clear (maintain compatibility).  i don't expect forward flank to value
these efforts.


reply via email to

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