From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:12:24 +0100 Message-ID: <878vj0yf3b.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87vcmj1gwn.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87aa3o9izn.fsf@gnu.org> <87ty1wm4j4.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1331896379 10125 80.91.229.3 (16 Mar 2012 11:12:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:12:59 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 16 12:12:57 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S8V5d-00069C-EJ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:12:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37010 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S8V5c-0000Ub-Kb for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:12:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33028) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S8V5R-0000Q2-5X for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:12:54 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S8V5H-0005Nw-8P for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:12:44 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:43323) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S8V5G-0005Nl-UG for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:12:35 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S8V5E-0005rV-Lb for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:12:32 +0100 Original-Received: from 193.50.110.167 ([193.50.110.167]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:12:32 +0100 Original-Received: from ludo by 193.50.110.167 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:12:32 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 49 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.50.110.167 X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 27 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vent=F4se?= an 220 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:5YdYdNbU6VqJ3cZcoDwX0LSGXYI= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:14123 Archived-At: Hi David, David Kastrup skribis: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: [...] >> The order in which files get compiled does not matter; the semantics of >> programs do not depend on whether code is being bytecode-interpreted or >> just interpreted by (ice-9 eval). > > Little things like > > (define-public fancy-format > format) > > (define-public (ergonomic-simple-format dest . rest) > "Like ice-9's @code{format}, but without the memory consumption." > (if (string? dest) > (apply simple-format (cons #f (cons dest rest))) > (apply simple-format (cons dest rest)))) > > (define format > ergonomic-simple-format) > > tend to make quite a difference depending on whether they are loaded or > not before compiling. > > That one actually caused a lot of wasted effort on > The ticket is a bit too dense for me. What’s the operational difference between compiling and evaluating the above code? >> The only reason you might want to compile files in topological order >> is performance. > > And macros. And redefinitions. And module hierarchy. I think you’re talking about what should be *re*compiled when a module has changed, right? What I was mentioning above holds for one-shot compilation of a set of modules, but you’re right that things are trickier when it comes to incrementally changing part of that module set. Thanks, Ludo’.