From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: guile-2.0 on mingw: the sequel Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 05:40:13 +0300 Message-ID: <838uzpgooi.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83vc2wj4hz.fsf@gnu.org> <877gfccueo.fsf@tines.lan> <83d2p4ifow.fsf@gnu.org> <874nada6t1.fsf@tines.lan> <87zjs58ry2.fsf@tines.lan> <83eh9hh5n4.fsf@gnu.org> <87r4dh8n24.fsf@tines.lan> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1377484821 22243 80.91.229.3 (26 Aug 2013 02:40:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 02:40:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 26 04:40:23 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@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 1VDmj8-000193-TP for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 04:40:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48438 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDmj8-00088r-Ea for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:40:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56199) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDmiw-00088h-7e for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:40:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDmiq-0004LS-Ua for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:40:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:44307) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDmiq-0004Hy-MZ for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:40:04 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MS400K009U35L00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 05:40:03 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MS400KKNA2Q2V60@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 05:40:03 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87r4dh8n24.fsf@tines.lan> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.175 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:10713 Archived-At: > From: Mark H Weaver > Cc: godek.maciek@gmail.com, guile-user@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 17:42:27 -0400 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Mark H Weaver > >> Cc: godek.maciek@gmail.com, guile-user@gnu.org > >> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 15:56:53 -0400 > >> > >> Remember that Guile is a library, not just an executable. So argv[0] > >> could point to any arbitrary executable that's linked with libguile. > > > > We can provide an API for passing to the library the root of its > > installation. > > I suppose, but that assumes that the main program knows the location of > the libguile installation it's linked to. How would it know this? We are talking about the situation where libguile is _not_ installed in the usual places. Why would a program _not_ know where that is? > > And btw, how is this different from GCC looking for its libgcc or GDB > > looking for its Python scripts? > > GCC and GDB are programs, not libraries. Finding out the location of > the current executable is a much easier problem than finding out the > install prefix of a particular library. The issue is how to find the auxiliary files _given_ the location of the executable, not how to find where the executable itself lives. > > And when it doesn't work, we didn't lose anything, we are just back to > > where we are now, right? > > I disagree. If we advertise a new feature that cannot work without > making dubious assumptions, then we're making promises we can't keep. > That's a step in the wrong direction, IMO. My turn to disagree.