In article <1362029952.21030%[email protected]>, "David T. Pierson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 06:40:23PM -0600, Brian Mastenbrook wrote: > > What is the expected behavior of module resolution when symlinking a > > Racket program, particularly one executed as a script using a shebang > > I think Racket is doing the right thing here. If it did what you seem > to be expecting, then a working setup would break when replacing a > non-symlinked file with a symlink to a file with the same contents in > another directory. I don't think Racket should be trying to defeat the > abstraction mechanism that symlinks provide. That's a good point; I think the difference in mental model I have here is that I naturally expected linking a top-level executable file to a different directory to work. I wouldn't necessarily expect it to work that way for ordinary modules. > I'd like to offer an alternative solution for you but I'm not sure I > understand your requirements exactly. Can't you just use a shell > script? Something like: > > #!/bin/sh > exec racket /path/to/foo/foo.rkt "$@" That's pretty much what "raco exe -l" does now. It works, as do a variety of other solutions (including just regular "raco exe"), but I was still somewhat surprised in this case. Perhaps my intuitions led me astray. -- Brian Mastenbrook [email protected] http://brian.mastenbrook.net/ ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
