On 18/08/11 17:06, Patrick McCarty wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Ian Hulin <ianhuli...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Thu 18 Aug 2011 07:50:28 BST, pnor...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> The load-order issue appears to be fixed, testing with git and >> guile 1.8 and 2.0.2. Ignoring whitespace changes, this patch >> LGTM. >> >> Some more shuffling is needed to make sure we have markup >> commands defined where they need to be, but that's beyond the >> scope of this patch. >> >> Should we have a Lilypond Markup Syntax/Guile V2 Tracker, then? > > I think we should have one tracker per issue that we encounter. > It becomes difficult to handle what has been fixed (and where) when > we have umbrella issues. > >> If there are any dependencies in the load list that you know >> about that can still bite us could we record these in the >> tracker, for instance the markup command itself works with both >> Guile 1.8 and 2.0 if it is loaded later in the list in a module >> apart from markup-macros.scm, but fails with 2.0 if you move the >> definition from markup.scm to the bottom of markup-macros.scm. > > Yes, any issues we find like this should have separate tracker > issues. I've just opened one: > > https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1826 > > I'll open more later today if I find time. > Should we mark Tracker Issue 1055 Verified, and ask Graham for a Type-Guile-V2-Migration tag in the Tracker system, then? >> There are also some design issues to consider like: >> >> Would the markup.scm and markup-macros.scm definitions work >> better as a SCM module? > > Possibly. > Hmm, OK. Does anyone else have any input on this, Han-Wen, Carl, Jan, Nicolas, Reinhold (or anyone else with more scheme-fu than me)?
If it's liable to be of real benefit in migrating to Guile V2 then let's raise a Tracker and I'll add another task to my in-tray. >> Should we/can we move over to making the markup subsystem >> hygienic by using define-syntax? >> >> (This is quite a big piece of work, and last time I tried looking >> at it, it seemed like it should be simple but made my head >> hurt). It's a translation exercise very like doing the document >> translation, and currently definitely needs to be done by a human >> being rather than software. > > If we want backwards compatibility with Guile 1.8, we shouldn't > move to define-syntax, as it's not implemented in Guile 1.8. :P > (use-modules (ice-9 syncase)) is available in 1.8.7 and has been incorporated into Guile V2.0 and (sigh) the above call deprecated. So we *could* do (if (guile-v2) ( (use-modules (ice-9 syncase))) at the top of the markup scheme files and then translate them. >> Current plans once this is pushed is to tackle Tracker 1780 >> (Guile V2 squawking with deprecation errors because of (format) >> calls without a destination parameter) and then get back to >> Tracker 1686 (tackling the issue of scheme compilation). > > Sounds good, thanks Ian! Cheers, Ian _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel