Hi! Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes:
> On Sun 18 Oct 2009 17:36, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: [...] >> Andy: can you comment? What was the idea behind >> ‘%load-compiled-path’? > > The idea is that given that the compiled files are > architecture-dependent, In theory, we could interpret the ‘.go’ cookie and byte-swap things if needed... > that they should go in $libdir instead of $datadir. We can add > $libdir, but I don't think it's a good idea -- not only for reasons of > excessive stat, but because I don't think we should be putting > binaries in with installed source. By now people may have started to update their packages to run “guile-tools compile” and install ‘.go’ files, so we really need to get this issue settled. I’m in favor of ‘.go’ alongside ‘.scm’: that’s what happens with .elc/.el and .pyc/.py and it had been the plan from 1.9.0 until recently. >> Besides, ‘scm_search_path ()’ was changed incompatibly compared to 1.8 >> in 22f4ee48822db5e30df3abf9a11b6066f2bab9d3. I’m wary about such >> incompatibilities and would like it if we could (1) list them, and >> (2) avoid them unless we really really can’t think of any other way. In >> this particular case, do you have an idea on how to avoid it? > > I don't really know. I'm sure it could be worked around somehow, but > it's not very fun work. It’s not, but there’s a fair amount of not very fun work in this vain to be done by 2.0. :-) I think we must pay close attention to backwards compatibility, at least to honor long time promises (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2003-02/msg00074.html). Thanks, Ludo’.
