Why `lisp' and `shortlisp'

Why `lisp' and `shortlisp'

[Stefan Monnier]

Can someone explain to me why we have both `lisp' and `shortlisp' in
src/Makefile.in?  It appears to contain the same list of files, so
I can't understand how it would make sense to sometimes refer to them
via ../lisp and sometimes via ${lispsource}.
Any clue?


        Stefan

Re: Why `lisp' and `shortlisp'

[Glenn Morris]

Stefan Monnier wrote:

> Can someone explain to me why we have both `lisp' and `shortlisp' in
> src/Makefile.in?  It appears to contain the same list of files, so
> I can't understand how it would make sense to sometimes refer to them
> via ../lisp and sometimes via ${lispsource}.

I wondered about this too. Perhaps:

$lisp specifies the full path for those who build in a different directory.
$shortlisp is needed for the comment above the rule for DOC:

/* We run make-docfile twice because the command line may get too long
   on some systems.  */

Perhaps $shortlisp is (more likely, was) needed to avoid overflowing
the command-line limit on "some" systems. Generating it from $lisp via
eg sed would have the same problem.

Re: Why `lisp' and `shortlisp'

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Can someone explain to me why we have both `lisp' and `shortlisp' in
>> src/Makefile.in?  It appears to contain the same list of files, so
>> I can't understand how it would make sense to sometimes refer to them
>> via ../lisp and sometimes via ${lispsource}.

> I wondered about this too. Perhaps:

> $lisp specifies the full path for those who build in a different directory.
> $shortlisp is needed for the comment above the rule for DOC:

> /* We run make-docfile twice because the command line may get too long
>    on some systems.  */

> Perhaps $shortlisp is (more likely, was) needed to avoid overflowing
> the command-line limit on "some" systems. Generating it from $lisp via
> eg sed would have the same problem.

But if `shortlisp' works, why use `lisp'?


        Stefan

Re: Why `lisp' and `shortlisp'

[Glenn Morris]

Stefan Monnier wrote:

>> $lisp specifies the full path for those who build in a different directory.
[...]
> But if `shortlisp' works, why use `lisp'?

See line 1 for my guess. I haven't investigated.

Re: Why `lisp' and `shortlisp'

[Stefan Monnier]

>>> $lisp specifies the full path for those who build in a different directory.
> [...]
>> But if `shortlisp' works, why use `lisp'?

> See line 1 for my guess. I haven't investigated.

That would mean that `shortlisp' doesn't work.
So if `shortlisp' always works, why use `lisp'? and if `shortlisp'
doesn't always work, isn't it a bug to use it?


        Stefan

Re: Why `lisp' and `shortlisp'

[Glenn Morris]

Stefan Monnier wrote:

> That would mean that `shortlisp' doesn't work.

Unless it works well enough for the context of make-docfile, which is
the only place that uses it. Looks like the -d option of make-docfile
is what enables it to work.

I'm only guessing, it's probably all due to...

> So if `shortlisp' always works, why use `lisp'? and if `shortlisp'
> doesn't always work, isn't it a bug to use it?

...hysterical raisins.

Re: Why `lisp' and `shortlisp'

[Stefan Monnier]

> Unless it works well enough for the context of make-docfile, which is
> the only place that uses it. Looks like the -d option of make-docfile
> is what enables it to work.

That sounds credible.  Thanks,


        Stefan