Wishes to the new G-Wrap maintainer?

[Andreas Rottmann]

Derek Atkins <warlord at MIT.EDU> writes:

> Andreas Rottmann <a.rottmann at gmx.at> writes:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> As I've taken over primary maintainership of G-Wrap[0], I'd just drop
>> this message here as a heads-up and an opportunity for the GnuCash
>> developers to provide input what you expect from G-Wrap in the
>> future. 
>
> Congrats (or condolences, as the case may be).  I'm glad g-wrap 
> has a new maintainer, rather than languishing..
>
In fact, it has also got another re-write by me :)

>>>From waht I've read on this list lately, it seems some people want to
>> replace G-Wrap with SWIG for GnuCash, which would be a pity,
>> IMHO. Anyway, I'd like to hear any G-Wrap-related suggestions, hints
>> and rants you might come up with.
>
> The reason people are considering swig is that it provides bindings to
> multiple languages, including perl, python, and tcl, not just guile.
>
I might add Python support if I'm bored during the summer holidays; it
would be a nice proof that the architecture of the 1.9 series is
flexible enough for multiple target languages.

> On my g-wrap wishlist, in order:
>
> 1) proper guile-1.6 code generation (don't generate code that uses
>    deprecated functions, e.g. change scm_{,un}protect_object to
>    scm_gc_{,un}protect_object if building with guile-1.6.
>
Fixed in 1.9.0 (released today). Unfortunatly, 1.9 and 1.3 wrapsets
are incompatible; an 1.3 compatibilty layer or conversion tool is
planned, however.

> 2) port to glib2/gtk2
>
1.9.0 has dropped the GLib binding; it is now provided by guile-gnome,
which targets GLib/GTK+ 2. The 1.3/1.4 line is mostly stalled, but I
might release a 1.4.0 with a few bugfixes and targetting GLib 2.0, for
the sake of GnuCash (guile-gnome, the other major project that uses
G-Wrap, has already switched to the 1.9 line).

> 3) improved configure script that actually works, and tests for slib
>    and qthread support.
>
OK, I'll add an SLIB check. Isn't qthreads an Guile-internal thing?

> 4) proper co-existence with older g-wrap (i.e., versioned scheme files
>    and/or versioned directories, as well as properly versioned .so files).
>
Yeah, that's something to think about. I don't know however, if
parallel-installabilty of the development files (as opposed to the
runtime, which should be co-installable definitly) is easily feasible.

Regards, Andy
-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | Rotty at ICQ      | 118634484 at ICQ | a.rottmann at gmx.at
http://yi.org/rotty      | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

It's *GNU*/Linux dammit!