Re: Testing dangerous change in tomorrow's snapshot (was: Re: Guile segv)

[thi <ttn@netcom.com>]

Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@nada.kth.se> writes:

> Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com> writes:
> 
> > In general, you ought to be able to safely redefine Guile's functions,
> > without breaking other code.  Guile shouldn't take over sections of
> > the user's name space in this manner.
> > 
> > However, at the moment, it just doesn't work this way.  We should
> > consider switching the user to a module other than the root upon
> > startup; if it can be done without horrible consequences, then we'll
> > do it for 1.3.  If not, we'll wait for the new module system.
> 
> I think the best way to see if we get horrible consequences is to test
> it on those poor souls who use the snapshots.  So, from tomorrow's
> snapshot, user's will start in a module `(user)' instead of in the
> root module:
> 
> 1998-07-14  Mikael Djurfeldt  <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se>
> 
> 	* boot-9.scm: Let the user start in module `(user)' instead of
> 	module `(guile)'.  Also make sure that `(user)' uses suitable
> 	modules.  This change improves Guile stability substantially since
> 	bindings will only be copied from the root module: If the user
> 	redefines builtins in `(user)' it won't affect the internal
> 	operation of Guile itself.
> 
> BTW, is `(user)' a good name, or should we name it something
> different?

how about `(guile user)', conceptually a subdir of `(guile)' ?  on the
other hand, plain `(user)' is nice and simple.

thi