Re: [d.love@dl.ac.uk: dynamic loading of native code modules]

[Andreas Rottmann <a.rottmann@gmx.at>]

Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:

> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
> 
> > If we can agree this, it would be good to do it in 1.6,
> 
> No. :-)
> 
> >     Thien-Thi> alternatively, we need to document *why* 1.6 chooses
> >     Thien-Thi> to rob the users so, at least to ourselves.  "This
> >     Thien-Thi> has been found to be too tricky, and is no longer
> >     Thien-Thi> supported" is, although not dis-honest, still pretty
> >     Thien-Thi> lame.
> > 
> > Upon reflection, I agree.
> 
> Yeah, ok.  Let me try to explain.  (This is the new
> workbook/modules/modules-and-shared-libs.text.)
> 
<snip/>

I'm OK with the new policy not to have *.so loaded automatically. 

However, I have a suggestion: If the lib is only to be used by the
.scm module (using load-extension), I see no point in putting it in
${libdir}. Instead it would be cleaner to be able to put it somewhere
in ${libdir}/guile to avoid namespace cluttering in ${libdir} (which
is, for example, (likely to be) indexed by the runtime linker on
linux).

Regards, Andy
-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | Dru@ICQ        | 118634484@ICQ | a.rottmann@gmx.at
http://www.8ung.at/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://www.8ung.at/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel