Hi, Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> skribis:
> On 02-08-2022 09:59, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>>> + (if (module-defined? (resolve-interface '(gnutls)) >>>> + 'set-session-record-port-close!) ;GnuTLS >= >>>> 3.7.7 >>> resolve-module (and presumably also sets #:ensure #t by default, which >>> sometimes causes 'module not found' messages to be replaced by >>> 'unbound variable', which I don't think is useful behaviour, can >>> #:ensure be set to #false? >> This is unnecessary: see the ‘load-gnutls’ mechanism there. The idiom >> above is already used in a couple of places. > > I have looked at the 'load-gnutls' procedure, but I do not see how it > avoids the issue I mentioned (*). [...] > (*) The autoloading of gnutls in load-gnutls avoids compilation errors > when gnutls is absent, but by the way it does it, it causes the module > to be registered as 'it exists' even when it doesn't, so the > information in the module system of Guix becomes incorrect. I understand what you’re saying (I’m quite familiar with Guile’s module system :-) and I do agree that #:ensure #t can lead to bad surprises), but I don’t think this is correct: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- scheme@(guile-user)> (resolve-interface '(xxx)) ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception: no code for module (xxx) Entering a new prompt. Type `,bt' for a backtrace or `,q' to continue. scheme@(guile-user) [1]> ,q scheme@(guile-user)> (resolve-module '(xxx) #f #:ensure #f) $1 = #f --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- This is because ‘resolve-interface’ does (resolve-module … #:ensure #f). Does that make sense? Thanks, Ludo’.
