At Sat, 14 Mar 2015 16:20:09 -0300, Gustavo Massaccesi wrote: > Can I move a .zo file from a machine that has extflonum enabled to a > machine that has extflonum disabled?
Yes. > Can I move a .zo file from a machine that has extflonum disabled to a > machine that has extflonum enabled? Yes. > More generally, when is it possible to copy .zo files form a computer > to another computer, and expect that it will work fine? Configuration details (extflonmun support, word size, whether places or futures are enabled, etc.) should never interfere with ".zo" file portability. > (I had problems with some absolute paths before, so I try to not copy > .zo files.) Paths can indeed create problems, but the bytecode format and compiler normally avoid them. A macro could expand to introduce an absolute path, but syntactic forms from `racket` shouldn't do that (unless there's a bug). For example, as long as a source file doesn't include `file` paths, `require` will not create absolute paths in bytecode output. Serialization can create absolute-path references, even from relative-path references, but only when the serializing program is started from a filesystem path (as opposed to a collection-based path). It's possible that I've forgotten some catch other than serialization, though. Can you say more about the situation where absolute paths showed up? ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
