Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role)

[Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net>]

>>>>> "Rob" == Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

    Rob> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
    >> To avoid this happening, I suggest that we could solve this
    >> problem by a mechanism that links Scheme code into a library or
    >> executable at build time.  This could be something like unexec
    >> (in which case the source would already have been read and
    >> stored in tree code), or it could be a linker tool that just
    >> dumps plain source code into the binary - as though it was a
    >> big const char[], but more convenient to use at build time.

    Rob> That could be interesting.  To some extent how we decide to
    Rob> handle compilation will factor in here.

Yes.

    Rob> If you thought large static scm fragments, were likely to be
    Rob> common, I guess one thing that might make hacking easier
    Rob> would be an easy way to do something equivalent to #include
    Rob> <foo.scm>, i.e. a way you could hack the scheme part as a
    Rob> scheme file, but then have the code end up incorporated in
    Rob> and evaled by the .so file.  Of course I guess anyone could
    Rob> hack something like that up if they needed to with a makefile
    Rob> and appropriate use of "cat"...

#include <foo.scm> would be very nice, but we'll probably need
something more dynamic as well.  I don't see what you mean by cat
though.

    Rob> Actually, I've been playing around with code that would make something
    Rob> like this possible (as a dumb example):

    Rob>   (define (double x)
    Rob>     (c-syntax
    Rob>       (if ("SCM_INUMP" x)
    Rob>           (return (* x x))
    Rob>           (return ("scm_apply" ("scm_lookup" "+") x x)))))

I don't see how this helps - please explain.

    Rob> Sure, but I was wondering what else might be needed.  Of course I'm
    Rob> not sure I have a clear idea of what kind of things might be
    Rob> omitted...

I don't have a very clear idea myself yet.  The main category in my
mind so far is almost all primitives - e.g. scm_catch, scm_setgid,
scm_set_object_properties_x - some exceptions being those concerned
with dissecting and constructing data - e.g. scm_cons, scm_list_p,
SCM_CAR, scm_vector.

Regards,
        Neil



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