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

[Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@nada.kth.se>]

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?