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

[Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>]

> > > Jim suggested the name `(scheme-repl)' instead on the basis that a lot
> > > of bindings will be useful only in a repl context.  If no-one has
> > > other ideas, I'll change `(user)' to `(scheme-repl)'.
> > 
> > I use lots of the bindings in ice-9/slib.scm even in embedded applications.
> > Besides, common lisp has CL-USER!
> 
> I agree that scheme-repl is a bad name, as it will be the package that
> users are placed in even in apps that don't have a repl. I'd recommend
> (guile-user) on analogy with CL, or just stick with (user).

Well, that's not exactly how I intended the scheme-repl module to be
used.  The idea was that each method of interaction --- REPL, script
loading, or in some application-specific way --- would be responsible
for creating a module that imported the appropriate things, to be used
in whatever manner made sense.  They would have names more appropriate
to their purpose.  For example, loading a script might get you a
module named after the script (for consistency, if you also use that
script as a loadable module from other scripts).

However, I may be presuming a lot of infrastructure that isn't there
yet.

R5RS talks about the interaction environment; the exact name escapes
me, but it seems like they're addressing the same issue, so we could
borrow the naming convention with them.  That way, there will be no
surprises when we implement R5RS.