From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-105194-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 2774 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2013 15:25:48 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 2761 invoked by uid 89); 10 Sep 2013 15:25:48 -0000
Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:25:48 +0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mtaout20.012.net.il
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MSX001001IFRO00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:25:28 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MSX0012F1IGF270@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:25:28 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:25:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Documentation for Scheme scripting
In-reply-to: <CAEei7h9s+sqRtL9BWC=zWyi0Tb4Uj-w5M9_HcWzGs=P49FjAcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Evans <dje@sceeck.org>
Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83eh8wk8b9.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <CAEei7h_R2DQvWpoDBu4rhVr63QkKsrqHFu4=3Py1LaYD8=G4XQ@mail.gmail.com> <87k3iqj5fk.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <CAEei7h9s+sqRtL9BWC=zWyi0Tb4Uj-w5M9_HcWzGs=P49FjAcg@mail.gmail.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00339.txt.bz2

> Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 22:29:10 -0700
> From: Doug Evans <dje@sceeck.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, eliz@gnu.org
> 
> > Though I would like to say now that this isn't really Scheme we're
> > talking about, but Guile.  There are differences.  I think it would be
> > best to be explicit about that in the docs.
> 
> How far do you think Guile vs Scheme should be pushed?

I don't speak for Tom, but my opinion is that you can use both
interchangeably.  Guile is an implementation of Scheme (AFAIK); its
sources are replete with references to Scheme, and many of its
variables/symbols use "scheme" or some shorthand thereof.

More specifically, I would use "Scheme" when talking about variables,
functions, etc., and "guile" when talking about the package and the
library.  Other use cases are gray area.

> Should the command to invoke a Scheme command be named "guile" instead
> of "scheme"?

Yes, I think we should use "guile" in this particular use case.