Hi Neil, On Tue 31 Mar 2009 15:47, Neil Jerram <n...@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
> Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: > >> #!/usr/bin/env guile -e .... >> >> but we all know the problem with that. > > Only one argument being portably supported? (I _think_ that's the > problem, but I'm not so sure that I don't want to check that that's > what you mean!) Heh, yes. Sorry, I should have been more clear. >> As far as needing the -e clause, it's so we can (use-modules (scripts >> compile)) in addition to being able to run it as a script. Not that I >> use that feature, but it is interesting. > > I don't use it either, and I don't think it's interesting enough to > justify the oddness of the incantation. I can't think of a scenario > where it really makes sense to have a module and main program combined > in the same file. If the module part isn't generally useful it > doesn't need to be written as a module. If the module is generally > useful, it should be given a place in the proper module tree (i.e. not > scripts/...), and the script file should (use-modules ...) it. I kindof agree. There's no need to have those scripts be executable files -- we can have them be modules instead. Then guile-tools can just use-module them, as you say. But they can probably stay in the scripts directory, so as to mark them as "runnable" -- so you can query "what scripts do I have installed?" But at least they can go into module/scripts/. I'll do that at some point if you have no objections. Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/