Re: [PATCH] guile: Remove (gdb init) module, and include 'init.scm'.

[Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>]

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hi, Doug,
>
> Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>>> This patch is a prerequisite for the following (compiling Scheme
>>> files).  It removes the (gdb init), which had a top-level circular
>>> dependency with (gdb), thereby preventing compilation.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ludo’.
>>>
>>> gdb/
>>> 2014-06-20  Ludovic Courtès  <ludo@gnu.org>
>>>
>>> 	* guile/guile.c: (gdbscm_init_module_name): Change to "gdb".
>>> 	* guile/lib/gdb.scm: Remove 'use-modules' form and include
>>> 	gdb/init.scm.  Change 're-export' to 'export'.  Export
>>> 	'*pretty-printers*' and '%assert-type'.
>>> 	* guile/lib/gdb/init.scm: Remove 'define-module' form.
>>> 	(%exception-print-style): Remove.
>>> 	* guile/lib/gdb/boot.scm: Change (gdb init) to (gdb).
>>> 	* guile/lib/gdb/experimental.scm: Remove use of (gdb init).
>>> 	* guile/lib/gdb/types.scm: Likewise.
>>> 	* guile/lib/gdb/printing.scm: Add '%assert-type', 'SCM_ARG1', and
>>> 	'*pretty-printers*' to the selection.
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> IWBN to not export %assert-type.
>> I was also thinking IWBN to not export *pretty-printers* and instead
>> export a function that returns the value.  WDYT?
>
> I agree, but that was needed for gdb/printing.scm.

Ah.
Can we put it in (gdb utils) or some such?

> That said, we may be able to access them from there using ‘@@’.  Perhaps
> that’d be preferable.  I can try that if you want.  WDYT?
>
>> btw, is (include ...) documented anywhere?
>
> Yes (info "(guile) Local Inclusion").

Thanks.
It's too bad manual entries don't include the parens.
grepping for "(include" didn't find it, and I gave up looking through
the results of grepping "include". :-)