I used .prolog because I thought that *was* a recognised extension. ".pl" is interpreted by Perl by nearly every editor on the plant and ".pro" is also for some other format too. Using ".prolog" means I have a hassle free existence for myself!
As for the gplc...I realised that I had got the command line arguments the wrong way around BUT I still can't rebuld gplc from source but that's for another day. I don't need to produce deliverable executables for a long time yet, I will worry about it then. Thanks, Sean. On 7 November 2013 12:40, "Michał Bieliński" <[email protected]> wrote: > Dnia 6 Listopada 2013, 23:58, Śr, Sean Charles napisał: > > OK that last email those string of hex characters .. it’s a > comment! > > > > 0x25 is %, 0x3A is : > > > > That’s in my source file I use comment blocks that are bounded like > > this... > > > > %%:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > > > doesn’t explain why the source won’t build again though! > > Actually, it gives a fairly explicit hint. Program gplc assumed the file > to be already in binary format already in tried to link it without > compiling. Try to use standardized file extensions like .pl or .pro > instead of .prolog. Then gplc is not going to be as confused. > > There is an option for gcc to treat files with weird extensions as > specific program type (e.g. -x c++ IIRC) but gplc has little need for it. > > -- > Michał Bieliński > > > _______________________________________________ > Users-prolog mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog >
_______________________________________________ Users-prolog mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog
