Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How would people feel about the addition of a new function > > lt_dlhandle lt_dlopen_interface(const char *name, int interface_number);
So do the libtool maintainers have any opinion about this one way or the other? As it stands, Guile, and I suspect any other apps that want to use dlopened libraries more heavily, especially user created libraries that may depend on each other, really have to do something to make sure they can rely on getting the interface they require when opening a library. To me, using the infrastructure libtool already supports as suggested above, seems the most natural thing, but if that's not acceptable, then Guile will probably need to implement something parallel to that internally, perhaps using a naming convention that embeds the versioning information in the library name, or something. In any case, I just wanted to see if there's sentiment either way so we can take it into consideration as we discuss what we need to do next in Guile. Thanks -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org Previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C 64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
