Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> skribis: > On Tue 21 Jun 2016 14:01, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> skribis: >> >>> On Sun 13 Oct 2013 15:51, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >>>> I think the right thing would be to use a separate module hierarchy in >>>> the dynamic extent of ‘compile-file’, somehow, such that all module side >>>> effects are isolated. >>> >>> I don't think this is going to happen, for what that's worth :/ >> >> What do you mean? >> >> Global state held in global variables is Bad. To me, this is clearly an >> area where things can and should be improved. In a live-hacked, >> long-running system, that ‘compile-file’ modifies the global state in >> arbitrary ways is not just a theoretical problem. >> >> WDYT? > > Maybe you are right. Maybe we need completely new data structures in > the module subsystem to support excursions in which we make private > changes to the module tree, and in which we can "commit" modifications > to the main tree when they are intended to be installed globally. Very > tricky to get right though. > > My "I don't think this is going to happen" expressed a guess as to our > ability to get this done, time- and interest-wise. How much are you > able to work on this?
I feel being cornered, which makes me feel bad. I think it’s reasonable and healthy to discuss, as a group, what’s worth fixing and how. Ludo’.