From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: Guile 1.9: bug in load Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:23:07 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4AFDC089.6010101@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1258399845 14639 80.91.229.12 (16 Nov 2009 19:30:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org To: Luca Saiu Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 16 20:30:37 2009 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 4.50) id 1NA7HZ-0001WL-Cb for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:30:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56587 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NA7HY-0002Kn-QR for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:30:36 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NA7Gt-00020B-EH for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:29:55 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NA7Go-0001xN-K2 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:29:54 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43877 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NA7Go-0001xH-G5 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:29:50 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:41345 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NA7Gm-0000mU-8a; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:29:48 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081468080E; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:29:48 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=DuSza1I9bHVTCCSxdn8FBAjpXbA=; b=VoUeqD rJuxiDnxl6B/FGFTEKyBMx3VivwgPlGIgGN6QxJGN1bY/uYsCRRJhnDPXYagy/HB B7rZEIc09o0zVUhpRAiBPSh/R/H6BW2Bog9w2NpFV8oR28peKVJHaMkQ6ibce0O5 TPYKnkBaSIpbRYZbg19ao4ktpAvqbwnWtralQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=wikmE+/qsRQlRBH80AMVYktx5aPXY8CJ 1hfZtv2vvx7fQtkbjyltHitcfvGD+i5W8/sy30yT5snYMlyRo/Aylk+DaZ7HPTZ2 CdXYP+5z5DZW0UiGP5ztFSSvGW0F+hOBUblBmZ9+3aBxwJrcDqHcV26LkrNJUhV0 yANU2v2vWgc= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85C98080D; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:29:46 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [88.17.207.217]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5235A8080C; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:29:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <4AFDC089.6010101@gnu.org> (Luca Saiu's message of "Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:24:41 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 665AED26-D2E6-11DE-B9D9-9F3FEE7EF46B-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:4361 Archived-At: Hi Luca :-) On Fri 13 Nov 2009 21:24, Luca Saiu writes: > load should call canonicalize-path relative to the directory of the file > which loads the other one, not relative to `pwd`. Has this changed since 1.8? AFAIK no -- but do correct me if I'm wrong -- and so for that reason, I don't think it's possible to change it -- for backwards-compatibility reasons. However the use case is important. We need to implement a (current-file) macro, I think, which should allow for file-relative loads. > Thanks and greeting from the GHM. Greetings to you! Andy -- http://wingolog.org/