() l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
() Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:53:37 +0100
But then doesn’t it prevent code reuse?
I don’t know to what extent this applies to RPX, but for instance, you
can’t just ‘(use-modules (rpx the-feature-you-want-to-use))’; you end up
doing ‘(use-modules (rpx))’ and
Hello,
Thien-Thi Nguyen writes:
> () Diogo F. S. Ramos
> () Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:50:29 -0300 (BRT)
>
>I recently learn a technique where, during 'make', one 'cat' all the
>sources files together, forming a big, single executable script. Doing
>so, there is no need to install the .scm
() Diogo F. S. Ramos
() Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:46:02 -0300 (BRT)
I wonder if there is a tool to, say, strip all comments from
the "binary", so it could be smaller. I guess such tool would
not be that hard to write, but I don't know.
It's not hard to write (that's what RPX does). Guile its
> >> > I wonder if there is a tool to, say, strip all comments from the
> >> > "binary", so it could be smaller. I guess such tool would not be that
> >> > hard to write, but I don't know.
> >>
> >> I think it's not a big deal if you just want to get rid of comments.I
> >> always do it like this w
>> > I wonder if there is a tool to, say, strip all comments from the
>> > "binary", so it could be smaller. I guess such tool would not be that
>> > hard to write, but I don't know.
>>
>> I think it's not a big deal if you just want to get rid of comments.I
>> always do it like this way:
>> =
nalaginrut wrote:
> > I wonder if there is a tool to, say, strip all comments from the
> > "binary", so it could be smaller. I guess such tool would not be that
> > hard to write, but I don't know.
>
> I think it's not a big deal if you just want to get rid of comments.I
> always do it lik
> I wonder if there is a tool to, say, strip all comments from the
> "binary", so it could be smaller. I guess such tool would not be that
> hard to write, but I don't know.
I think it's not a big deal if you just want to get rid of comments.I
always do it like this way:
==
sed "/;.*/d" filena
>I recently learn a technique where, during 'make', one 'cat' all the
>sources files together, forming a big, single executable script. Doing
>so, there is no need to install the .scm files, because they are all
>inside the same executable file.
>
> This is the technique used in RP
> I use the following trick to get things into the guile site directory
> (and still pass a make distcheck).
>
> In configure.ac
> GUILE_PROGS
> GUILE_FLAGS
> GUILE_SITE_DIR
>
> GUILE_PREFIX=`$GUILE_CONFIG info prefix`
> AC_SUBST(GUILE_PREFIX)
>
> In src/Makefile.am:
> SUFFIXES = .scm .go
> .scm
() Diogo F. S. Ramos
() Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:50:29 -0300 (BRT)
I recently learn a technique where, during 'make', one 'cat' all the
sources files together, forming a big, single executable script. Doing
so, there is no need to install the .scm files, because they are all
inside the sam
I use the following trick to get things into the guile site directory
(and still pass a make distcheck).
In configure.ac
GUILE_PROGS
GUILE_FLAGS
GUILE_SITE_DIR
GUILE_PREFIX=`$GUILE_CONFIG info prefix`
AC_SUBST(GUILE_PREFIX)
In src/Makefile.am:
SUFFIXES = .scm .go
.scm.go:
$(top_srcdir)/b
I have a program written entirely in guile's scheme and I use
autotools to distribute it.
Is there a guide to distribute guile programs?
I know that some languages have, but I can see any in the guile docs.
My biggest concern is about the .scm files that makes up my program.
For those who know
12 matches
Mail list logo
