This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
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