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] |
Didier Verna <verna@inf.enst.fr> writes: > * Another showstopper is the apparent lack of will to help > newcomers solving their problems. OK, it's August. But I don't see > how you can expect to get more people involved in the developpement > if you don't help them getting started. I'm not sure I've seen this. I've personally looked over someone's SMOB code (Telford?). I don't know your direct experience, but I see people being helpful pretty frequently. I think this is really a side effect of the lack of documentation. If newcomers had a coherent manual to chew on, there would be fewer questions, so each one could get more energy spent on it. > * You can't either expect people to use the snapshots. People > need stable releases. I'm not against the idea of moving the API, if > it can improve it. But people must be informed of the incompatible > changes from stable release to stable release. Right. I think there's also a psychological significance to real releases. > * As far as I could see, but again, this is a newbie view, the gh API > seems strange, uncomplete and inconsistent. Some examples: > > - Why using so many functions with just a `return' line, instead of a > set of standardized macros ? Something like BOOLEAN_P instead of > gh_boolean_p. gh_ has some gaps, as I said in a previous message. The function vs. macro debate is an old one between myself and Mark Galassi (gh_'s author). It's not a cut-and-dried decision in all cases, but certain things should definitely be macros. I just need to introduce Mark to the muzzle of my Saturday Night Special, and this'll get straightened out, toute suite.