Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][for chicken-5] Remove srfi-13

[Mario Domenech Goulart]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:44:34 +0200 Peter Bex <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 03:25:24PM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
>> Ah, well done, Mario! 
>> 
>> But, some remarks:
>> 
>> * Perhaps we should "svn cp" the release/4 branch and add new eggs
>>   afterwards, otherwise the "5" directory will be in the way. By
>>   copying the tree, the new eggs for the functionality extracted in
>>   the recent CR will be available, too.
>
> I don't grok what you are saying here.  Do you want to copy the entire
> CHICKEN 4 egg list to CHICKEN 5?  It may be better to copy individual
> eggs later, when we've finished all our module refactorings.  That way,
> the eggs won't all break at once, and only the eggs people are really
> interested in will survive the transition.

I'm not sure I understand either.  I thought we would populate release/5
as eggs get ready to work with CHICKEN 5.  As a side-effect, it would be
a good opportunity to left some crufty eggs behind.

>> * Wouldn't it be preferrable if we collect re-implementations of some
>>   srfi-13 routines in a common library unit, for internal use only?
>
> Maybe not just for internal use.  Perhaps a chicken.string module could
> contain these things plus the CHICKEN-specific ones from data-structures,
> like string-intersperse and such?  these functions are useful to user
> code, too.  Especially if we optimise them by removing all the silly
> polymorphisms from the SRFI-13 implementation.

I don't have a strong opinion on this point.  I'm slightly concerned
about too much name duplication of often-used procedures.  I think it
can be confusing.  Like "is this `string-prefix?' from core or from
srfi-13?"  (of course, we can make it clear at import time).  OTOH, I'd
love to have a procedure like `string-prefix?' (without all the optional
argument madness) in the core. :-)

>> * Does this require a change-request? We haven't "officially" decided
>>   yet on extracting the srfi's, even though it seems to be the
>>   consensus.
>
> Nah, CHICKEN 5 will break backwards compat across the board anyway, so
> change-requests aren't really necessary.  If someone disagrees, they
> can object here on the list.

Sorry, I haven't even thought about CRs.  I just assumed we won't bother
much about breaking compatibility in CHICKEN 5 (it doesn't mean we
should gratuitously break stuff).  But you have a point -- we may not
have a consensus on some decisions.  How about creating CRs when such
issues arise?  For example, like Peter suggests, when someones disagrees
on the list.

Best wishes.
Mario
-- 
http://parenteses.org/mario