modules and version numbers
Ciao, I am thinking about adding a version number to my modules; I want a simple scheme 'major.minor', with NO patch level and NO status indicator (devel, alpha, beta, stable). The major number changes only when backward compatibility is broken. No problem for C language shared libraries; so far the only idea I had for Scheme files is to call the files "./path/to/module-1.scm" without minor number in the file name, and so '(define-module (path to module-1))'. I wonder if someone had ideas about it. Something that can be done now... P.S. I have found: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2005-09/msg00093.html but it is not available now, nor it will be available anytime soon. And no, I cannot work on it. -- Marco Maggi "Now feel the funk blast!" Rage Against the Machine - "Calm like a bomb" ___ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
guile pkg-config meta file?
Ciao,
is there a specific reason for Guile not to install a
pkg-config meta file? It should be as simple as putting:
prefix=/usr/local
exec_prefix=${prefix}
libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib
includedir=${prefix}/include
Name: Guile
Description: GNU's Ubiquitous Intelligent Language for
Extensions
Version: 1.8.1
Libs: [stuff from guile-config link]
Cflags: [stuff from guile-config compile]
or something into "${prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/guile.pc".
I do not use pkg-config but I am starting to put
meta files in my distributions, because it is so
easy to offer this one more option...
--
Marco Maggi
"Now feel the funk blast!"
Rage Against the Machine - "Calm like a bomb"
___
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
Re: rfc (define-module ... #:use-modules ...)
> From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > that is, `#:use-modules X Y Z' would be exactly equivalent > to `#:use-module X #:use-module Y #:use-module Z'. > > quantitatively, for N upstream (used) modules, this would result > in N-1 fewer keywords required in the `define-module' form. > > what do people think of this syntatic sugar? Syntactic sugar is really boring. I have never understood why there are #: keywords in the first place. Why don't quoted symbols and keywords defined by macros and syntactic abstraction totally suffice? > ... i should wait so as to be able to harmonize w/ > [guile 8] design. perhaps we can start to build > towards each other in this way. It would be heartening to read that the maintainer of the fork wants to build toward the other branch were it not for the cynical suspicion that that "harmonize" is like "bi-pertisan"; it means everyone should do it my way, even if they fundamentally disagree with me. If you want to harmonize, maybe both branches could think about implementing R6RS library forms. -- Keith ___ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
