---- Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu 18 Sep 2008 00:57, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Basically, a .go file will be preferred over a .scm file even if the > > .scm file is earlier in the load-path. I think that the file earlier > > in the load-path should win. > > A few thoughts: > > (1) Guile shouldn't have installed paths (its system paths) in its path > when running uninstalled, otherwise you can get strange issues like > you saw -- it's not limited to .go files, it could be .scm as well
True. > (2) I can imagine cases in which you would want compiled files not in > the same location as source; e.g. /usr/lib64/guile/ vs > /usr/share/guile/; although currently .go files are not > platform-dependent (I don't think) Hmm. Also true. > (4) We already check to make sure that the .go file is newer than the > .scm file Good. > I would suggest that the current way is sufficient, if we disable > loading from the installed paths when running pre-inst-guile; because I > kinda want to allow (2), but I don't want to deal with ordering issues > within %load-path of "compiled locations" versus "source locations". I'm pretty sure the case of not using the already installed system .scm files while building is handled now. I'm thinking more along the lines of some user wanted to override a system file for some reason. This issue came up for me when I wanted to use a newer gnus than what came with the system supplied emacs. At that time I didn't have admin privs so I just installed gnus somewhere under my home dir and made sure that the emacs load path searched there first. Can this situation ever come up in Guile? Maybe. As Neil mentioned, emacs is a good example to follow. That's why I'm suggesting this. > Sorry about your bug, I know it was a bit painful. But you would not > have had it if guile were operating correctly in the first place, > regardless of the .go vs .scm issue. No problem there. Finding (and fixing) bugs is what makes using developing code fun. ;^) Thanks, -Dale
