Re: Bundling G-Wrap

[Andreas Rottmann]

Greg Troxel <address@hidden> writes:

> If it is semantically sensible to use g-wrap without having glib
> (e.g., to wrap another library),
>
It is.

> then g-wrap should not depend on glib or anything gnomeish.  IMHO
> this is more important than keeping the number of dependencies down
> - I find many dependencies with no issues easier than dependencies
> with unwarranted complexity.
>
This is my feeling, too.

> I agree that it would be nice to have g-wrap as part of core guile
> (assuming g-wrap cannot be extended to to handle other schemes), but
> that seems likely to lead to even slower releases :-)
>
In fact, a major goal of the recent rewrite of G-Wrap was to cleanly
separate Guile-specific and generic code. I intend to make G-Wrap
support Pika Scheme (Tom Lord's upcoming Scheme project), once Pika is
major enough. So even if Guile releases were far more frequent, it
wouldn't make too much sense, either.

Andy
-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | address@hidden      | address@hidden | address@hidden
http://yi.org/rotty      | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?