Re: thanks

[Dirk Herrmann <dirk at ida dot ing dot tu-bs dot de>]

On 6 Dec 1999, Greg Harvey wrote:

> I'd say give up on portability where it conflicts with making guile
> more useful. One of guile's big strengths (as other people have
> attested) is the ability to create new scheme objects and let the
> system handle them; this probably won't ever be done in a consistant
> way across different schemes due to the differences in core
> implementation. I really think that we should aim to have one
> conceptual hierarchy that applications programmers can use to embed
> guile, which would keep things from being confusing or annoying, and I
> don't think scm_ is that hierarchy, since it severly constrains the
> kind of changes you can make to the core without totally breaking
> compatability (this is even more annoying than having to remember
> which of half a dozen prefixes a function belongs to). 

I would not give up (yet) on the attempt to find a general solution, even
for the generation of new objects.  However, this shouldn't be
high-priority.

In any case, as the previous discussion has shown, there _are_ some
possible extensions to the gh_ interface that could be added without
having to do much thinking in the very beginning:  Basically most (all?)
of the RxRS functions could get a gh_ equivalent.

Dirk Herrmann