On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 12:18:51PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote: > Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > > > Well, there was already one very legitimate usage of compile time > > loadlib, which is now using C<.loadlib> for that: > > We certainly need both compile-time and runtime loading of libraries. > So, it's just a question of which syntax to use for which case. > > chromatic suggests .include for "load this library at compile and run > time". The .include directive is currently being used to mean "inline > the entire source code for this file here". But, I've always thought of > that as a hack we put in before we had library loading working. Any > thoughts?
C<.include> and C<loadlib> are really very different. It's like #include and dlopen(3) in the C language. But I can see, what is leading to this argument: loading arbitrary bytecode within .include, which should better be done with C<load_bytecode>. This means, we'd have: .include "file.pasm/.pir" ... load macros or constants (no code) load_bytecode "file.pbc" ... load a "module" $P0 = loadlib "file" ... load a shared lib (pmc or ops) .loadlib "file" ... same during compilation > That would leave us the consistency of the loadlib opcode and the > .loadlib directive both meaning "load this library at runtime". Not really. > Allison leo
