Re: canvas example and fixes

[Andy Wingo]

On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 13:19 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just wanted to summarize the conclusions for naming schemes. I still
> > think having the tarball name all ofer the place is a bit ugly, but I
> > don't feel like switching it around any more. (Also, I can't create new
> > categories on the mainline archive. Any way that can change, rotty?)
> >
> Only if we move to a site like Gna! that allows centralized Archives
> (or get Savannah to support it).

Damn kid, we've moved a lot. First from having no page, to guile-gtk,
then RMS blessed a guile-gnome project (BTW: I think the FSF needs
papers from you and Jan), then the TRAGEDY of my learners turning off my
computer as I was trying to register the savannah project, then the
savannah crack and subsequent incomptetence...

I want to be GNU, I really do. But I also want the project to live. I
don't like the idea of the official source for a GNU project to be
outside of gnu.org, but maybe we have to go where the life is.

If we move, will it be final? I guess that's what I really care about.
Then when people google for guile and gnome (try it!), they'll actually
know that there's a worthwhile option for development.

Should we move?

> > Maybe I'm crazy.
> >
> *g* I just thought it would make sense, since the names are presumably
>  globally unique. Also the names aren't user-visible, they are just
>  internal, so I don't mind that they are a bit verbose/ugly. Maybe you
>  mind? ;)

I wouldn't reject a patch to change all these names, but at this point I
don't care so much anymore...

> >> > Perhaps we should require that the scheme code be
> >> > done manually. That way (gnome gtk) dlopens the g-wrap library itself,
> >> > and there is no (gnome gw foo). Dunno, thoughts?
> >> >
> Any reasons you'd like to do this for (aside from doing away with the
> re-export stuff?).

Well, the scheme module just feels wrong, and vestigial. There shouldn't
be a need for it. But anyway, apathy overcomes me.

> > OK, I don't want to delay a g-wrap release any more ;) But the presence
> > of a g-wrap scheme module can only cause confusion: people will think
> > they can just use the things in (gnome gw ...), when that's private API
> > (beside the -spec files).
> >
> I think documenting this big and fat would be enough.

OK.

> > people will get lazy and release code that depends on (gnome
> > gw foo). A number of categories are like that now.
> >
> Yeah, this should be fixed.

I fixed some of these.

Cheers,
-- 
Andy Wingo <address@hidden>
http://ambient.2y.net/wingo/