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

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

Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:

> Hmm, what about genuine scripts that are run with `guile -s' or
> something?  Or applications that use libguile without booting into a
> repl.  Should we force them to always specify the module they want to
> run in, or would the (scheme-repl) module be appropriate for them,
> too.  The name suggests that it wouldn't be.

I agree that applications shouldn't start automatically in this
module.  However, I think that gh_repl() and the "normal" Guile repl
should.  (We might add a more primitive version of gh_repl() as well
(called internally in gh_repl()) where less parameters are
predetermined.)

> Shooting from the hip: could we make boot-9 boot up with a (null)
> module that only contains `define-module'?  The repl code would then
> start by defining the (scheme-repl) module and import all needed
> stuff.  Scripts and custom applications would need to do the same, in
> a way they see fit.
> 
> This would require all users to be explicit about module issues,
> except for interactive code.  I kinda like that.

Me too.