Am Samstag, dem 06.02.2021 um 22:27 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld: > Am Samstag, dem 06.02.2021 um 21:01 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys: > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 7:21 PM Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> > > wrote: > > > While trying to understand the current situation of LilyPond and its > > > Guile modules, I noticed that there is a certain split: > > > * lily.scm and all files pulled in by ly:load are referenced relative > > > to scm/, ie just the file name (without the extension after my changes > > > at https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/635 ). > > > * On the other hand, proper modules are prefixed with (scm), for > > > example (scm framework-ps) and (scm output-ps). > > > > > > This works right now, but requires that main_with_guile prepends both > > > the determined datadir and datadir + "/scm" to the %load-path. Similar > > > treatment would be necessary for %load-compiled-path for the compiled > > > bytecode. That's a bit ugly because it requires an scm/ directory to > > > hold the compiled .go files... > > > > > > I experimented with this locally and it seems possible to remove the > > > (scm) scope and reference all modules relative to scm/, ie have modules > > > (framework-ps), (output-ps) and so on. My question would be: Is there a > > > good reason *not* to do this? > > > As far as I could find out, this split goes back to the very first > > > module added in commit > > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/commit/e11dc9a89c31b64615bcdcb8b536621ded30176b > > > from 2001. I'm adding Han-Wen and Jan, do you happen to remember if > > > that was an explicit choice or "just worked"? > > > > I think this is a setup that stuck to the wall when we threw it, so > > there is no urgent reason to keep the naming precisely like this. > > However, other Scheme modules are grouped (eg, "(srfi srfi-1)" or > > "(ice-9 optargs)"). I think it would be good to follow this style and > > have a lilypond-specific prefix. Maybe "(lily framework-ps)" ? > > Yes, that would have been my next question: We can either go with a > flat layout like (framework-ps) or introduce our own scope that we use > consistently, like (lily framework-ps). Upon installation that would > require a subdirectory to both scm/ and the directory holding the > compiled bytecode, certainly doable I would say. What I'm not sure > about is lily.scm that is loaded into a module (lily) created by > lily/guile-init.cc. Should this become (lily lily), which looks odd, or > can this stay (lily) and still have submodules? Note that keeping this > at (lily) might be slightly awkward because it means that lily.scm must > not be installed in scm/lily/ like all other files, but only scm/
This is now https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/710 (at least for the sources, nothing related to bytecode yet).
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
