On 2023-10-18 09:44:35 -0400, Olivier Dion wrote: > On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Marc Chantreux <m...@unistra.fr> wrote: > > hi, > > > > I don't get the difference between this > > > >> 2. The program is written in Guile. It can access C routines with the > >> foreign function interface (FFI). … > > > > and this: > > > >> There is a third way that I personally use. I use the FFI to make > >> bindings of the public interface of a low-level C library I work on. > > In my case, the library is written in C and I make bindings for it. So > this is closer to the first model, like Gnu Makefile. But it is not > meant for users scripting, but developers scripting. > > > i choose the strategy 2 using the shebang described here > > > > https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Running-Guile-Scripts.html > > > > the only annoyance I have occurs the first time a user runs the script: > > he gets this message > > > > ;;; note: auto-compilation is enabled, set GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0 > > ;;; or pass the --no-auto-compile argument to disable. > > > > would be nice to have a flag to handle it the other way > > > > #!/usr/local/bin/guile -s --silent-auto-compilation > > !# > > > > Did I miss something? > > I always have this shebang now in my Guile scripts (might not work on > fedora because the guile binary is guile3): > > #!/bin/sh > #-*-Scheme-*- > exec guile --no-auto-compile -e main -s "$0" "$@" > !#
The problem with --no-auto-compile is that without the compilation the error messages (and stack traces) are... less than great. But other than that I am using the same shebang. > > -- > Olivier Dion > W. -- There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
