-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello, and happy new year G-Wrappers! ;-) > > As you might have seen on `guile-devel'[0], relying on object properties > to implement `gw_wcp_set_dependencies ()' (used for the `aggregated' > typespec[1]) was not a good idea, given the sloppiness of the GC > semantics in that area (at least, in the absence of a patch similar to > the one I proposed). > > So I re-implemented it, in `guile-wct.c', in (i) a more straightforward > manner and (ii) in a way that doesn't rely on source properties and is > consequently more robust. This works by adding a `dependencies' field > (containing a list of Scheme objects) to the `wrapped_c_pointer_data' > structure. > > Afterwards, it occurred to me that the `scm_data' field was intended to > be used for the very same purpose. Hence the second patch. The third > patch adds a little bit of documentation on that topic. > > patch-16 > Re-implemented `gw_wcp_set_dependencies ()' in a more robust way. > patch-17 > Removed the `scm_data' field from `wrapped_c_pointer_data' in > `guile-wct.c'. > patch-18 > Documentation: added a discussion of the `aggregated' type qualifier. > > To summarize, the `aggregated' typespec functionality is now spread over > patches 7, 13, 16, 17, 18. > > Andreas: can you please either merge this or speak out if you don't have > time to do that or if you think that this feature sucks and that you > don't want to merge it anyway? :-) > I've yet to look at these patches; I did not have the time yet to give them a serious review; however, since I have now more time on my hands, I will finally come around to do so.
> More generally, there is a number of patches from me that you do not > have merged yet and I have no idea whether this is due to lack of time > or disapproval. I would *really* appreciate if you could merge them, or > say something, or even both. ;-) > I've now done a merge of the "easy" patches (i.e. the ones I see no potential problems with): Summary: Merged [EMAIL PROTECTED]/g-wrap--devo--1.9.6 (patch 6,10,11) Keywords: Patches applied: * [EMAIL PROTECTED]/g-wrap--devo--1.9.6--patch-6 Added support for `mark' and `free' in <gw-wct>. * [EMAIL PROTECTED]/g-wrap--devo--1.9.6--patch-10 Fixed a bug in strings unwrapping on Guile; augmented the doc. * [EMAIL PROTECTED]/g-wrap--devo--1.9.6--patch-11 Have WCPs honor the `null-ok' typespec; augmented the doc. In the following there are some comments on the things I eyeballed already: * patch-3: Restored `typespec-options' in module `(g-wrap)'. AFAICS, typespec-options has never been exported from (g-wrap); is this patch really needed? * patch-12: Added an INLINED? arg to the wrap/unwrap CGs; augmented the doc. This breaks the API; as currently the main client of G-Wrap is guile-gnome (besides gnucash, but that uses a compatibility layer, and is hence not affected). AFAIK, Andy Wingo is planning a guile-gnome "stable" release soon; I'd say this should definitly go in after the guile-gnome release (we might want to do a "stable" G-Wrap release at the same time or shortly before the guile-gnome release). I still have to check wether the --dev--0 branch is suitable for a stable release or if there are any major disruptions; at this point the rules for getting stuff into the next release of G-Wrap are roughly the following: * Don't break Scheme API * Don't break C source compatibility (ABI doesn't matter) This release 1.10, will serve as the starting point for the 1.10.x series, where C and Scheme source compatibility as well as ABI compatibility will be guaranteed. * patch-14: g-wrap--devo--1.9.6--patch-14 I get conflicts when trying to "replay" this on my --dev--0 branch. This is probably due to it depending on earlier patches that touch g-wrap.texi. AFAICS, this documentation is perfectly suitable in the next release, however (in the sense that it only describes features that are already present). I see you are still working on a single branch, which makes things like this awkward. It would be really awesome if you could sort out (refactor) your patches onto two branches, e.g.: - --dev--1.10: Stable branch: only documentation improvements, bugfixes, unintrusive tweaks, ... - --dev--0: On this branch, do the potentially disruptive work (API breaks and the like). Merge from --dev--1.10 to get the bugfixes. > In fact, once we've made some progress on those patches, I think it > would make sense to release something. I believe that even > documentation alone would justify a release. What do you think? > Indeed; altough only part of your patches can be included in 1.10.x, there can/should be a parallel unstable/development tree, see above. Cheers, Rotty -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDwnOM+S/PxQH9W2IRAvRCAJ95UQaXdZDnnsJqkVHZHP8vvHUnfgCeP3yq 4foSCNSDkSiZbAs9WaflwPE= =InTf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ g-wrap-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/g-wrap-dev
