From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Julian Graham Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: find-versioned-module bugs Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:02:47 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1276578180 10034 80.91.229.12 (15 Jun 2010 05:03:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 05:03:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 15 07:02:59 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOOIc-0002Un-H1 for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:02:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42161 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OOOIb-0003mD-Ia for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:02:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=32826 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OOOIU-0003kg-HD for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:02:51 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOOIT-0006dj-I0 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:02:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-iw0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:55082) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOOIT-0006dR-F4 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:02:49 -0400 Original-Received: by iwn1 with SMTP id 1so5553926iwn.0 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:02:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=02WaNtARmSfstogHi9R6iTAkBqhk8ngfLiW+qF00rDw=; b=fDjoRBVnFcty2ent//agQ86JU0I9NUunuJP+upcGd1jYnPNdfK4IGr2RMA7sxcaQQb 594X6dXm6rdGIUQa++ZJcr5UN26dP3vWXYoB2p95OV8k0N43ZCamoHFA9TtaKMOYj+sH dLIiY53KqkoC+HgJALxtPTK91HRslEfUuZzMQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=X8y6fiImocihMGUeDALqAFgcgy/SsM1csiyF7BuW75G38XoR9OBK0Krgv4NcbMhUtP SGFWYexQMdqlDPgr11HYLP4ypMbgpjdsibWeltKqKiznsYaDO2AQLWWZXSGX6dPm47Ua A/TZ5+2T9CeYVcrEveyFDZvxFhz0qCXnmEzO4= Original-Received: by 10.231.148.131 with SMTP id p3mr6618987ibv.18.1276578167709; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.231.172.137 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:02:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:4663 Archived-At: Hi Andy, > =A01. Precompiled files are never used; only the fallback path (~/.cache) > =A0 =A0 is used. This is because resolve-module calls `load' in the > =A0 =A0 versioned case, and only `primitive-load-path' scours > =A0 =A0 `%load-compiled-path'. The solution is going to be complicated, a= nd > =A0 =A0 require some refactoring. I don't want to implement the mtime dan= ce > =A0 =A0 again. Ah, yes, I remember -- FWIW, `find-versioned-module' was supposed to be a version-aware formulation of `primitive-load-path'. Well, uh, what should we do? I don't suppose it'd make sense to move some of the precompiled-file-checking code from `primitive-load-path' into a place where it could be used by, say, `primitive-load', would it? > =A02. Version order: Hoo, dunno. See above. Is "first compatible" the > =A0 =A0 right thing, or should we be smarter (and more wasteful)? I don't feel strongly either way -- "smarter's" already working (I think), but "first compatible" is pretty easy to move to. Let me know how you'd like to proceed and I'll make it so. Sorry I've been sluggish about addressing these! Regards, Julian