This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Documentation for Scheme scripting
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at sceeck dot org>
- Cc: tromey at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:25:30 +0300
- Subject: Re: Documentation for Scheme scripting
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAEei7h_R2DQvWpoDBu4rhVr63QkKsrqHFu4=3Py1LaYD8=G4XQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <87k3iqj5fk dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <CAEei7h9s+sqRtL9BWC=zWyi0Tb4Uj-w5M9_HcWzGs=P49FjAcg at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> 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.