On Thu, 2022-05-19 at 13:28 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Jonas Hahnfeld via LilyPond user discussion <lilypond-user@gnu.org> > writes: > > On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 23:28 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > > > Personally, I'd rather have it. The tiny fraction that will want > > > readline support will want it for running scheme-sandbox or other forms > > > of REPL. It greatly increases the friendliness of playing around with > > > Scheme stuff in the manner the manual suggests, and the people playing > > > around with Scheme stuff are the most likely candidates for becoming > > > future contributors. > > > > As I just replied in my other message, the REPL itself works fine. > > "[readline] greatly increases the friendliness of playing around with > Scheme stuff in the manner the manual suggests, ..."
Ah okay, in my (non-native) understanding "it" referred to the REPL in general which is more friendly than putting statements in a file and compiling it... > > This paragraph is outdated and I'm working towards not shipping the > > separate guile executable with the official binaries. > > Probably by recoding lilypond-invoke-editor in a different language? Yes, it's the only script not written in Scheme whereas all others are Python, see https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6311 > > I'll update the documentation afterwards to mention that it can be > > installed on many Linux systems, but is / will not be included in the > > binaries. > > Does this have to do with byte-compilation? Partly: to use the guile executable, you'd need to set at least GUILE_LOAD_PATH and GUILE_LOAD_COMPILED_PATH (which we currently do in the wrapper script for lilypond-invoke-editor). Other than that, I don't think it's a good idea to distribute unused stuff, in particular since static linking means the guile executable will duplicate the entire libguile that is already linked into lilypond. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
