[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I think this rules out any kind of iteration through a .d directory >> from init.scm. Apologies for not seeing this consideration before. > > Agreed. Guile already takes almost two seconds to start up on my > 500 MHz G4...
Good, thanks. >> -- Scheme Procedure: initialize-packages . package-names [...] > > Hmm, I don't like it a lot, I find it way too intrusive. And this may > also have a slight impact on startup time. How so? Given that you're about to do a (use-modules (whatnot)), I can't see that also doing (initialize-packages "whatnot") will make a significant difference. > Maybe we could instead go for an ad hoc solution. For instance, have > Guile provide a `guile-setup' program which could be used as follows: > > $ guile-setup add-load-path "/usr/chbouib/guile/" > $ guile-setup remove-load-path "/usr/local/share/guile/smurf" > > In practice, this would modify a single (text) file, say, > `$data/load-paths.cfg'. This very file would be loaded when Guile is > started, modifying `%load-path' accordingly. Autoconf macros would make > sure that `guile-setup add-load-path' is called upon installation of a > Guile package. > > For efficiency reason, this file should be text-only (e.g., one load > path per line), or it could be more Scheme-friendly (e.g., a sequence of > RnRS strings which may be read by `read'). It should not require any > call to `eval'. > > What do you think? I proposed something very like this before: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2005-10/msg00098.html But then I changed my mind, for reasons given here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2005-10/msg00109.html > This is certainly not perfect but I think we must strive (i) to keep > things simple and (ii) to avoid wasting more cycles. Sure, but simple is a complicated concept :-). For example, the initialize-packages approach is simple in that it doesn't require a post-install script to work (whereas the config.scm approach does). Things aren't clear cut in terms of cycles either. Suppose you have 20 Guile packages installed on your computer, spread across 6 different load path locations. With the config.scm approach you will always have all 6 locations in your load path, even when running a script that uses only one package (or no packages at all), so on average it will take a little longer to load every file that the script needs. With the initialize-packages approach, the script's load path will only contain the directories that it really needs. Does that sway you at all? Anyone else? Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
