Re: Is it possible to write program only in Guile?

[wolf <wolf@wolfsden.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1813 bytes --]

On 2023-10-18 09:44:35 -0400, Olivier Dion wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Marc Chantreux <mc@unistra.fr> wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > I don't get the difference between this
> >
> >>  2. The program is written in Guile.  It can access C routines with the
> >>  foreign function interface (FFI). …
> >
> > and this:
> >
> >> There is a third way that I personally use.  I use the FFI to make
> >> bindings of the public interface of a low-level C library I work on.
> 
> In my case, the library is written in C and I make bindings for it.  So
> this is closer to the first model, like Gnu Makefile.  But it is not
> meant for users scripting, but developers scripting.
> 
> > i choose the strategy 2 using the shebang described here
> >
> > https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Running-Guile-Scripts.html
> >
> > the only annoyance I have occurs the first time a user runs the script:
> > he gets this message
> >
> > 	;;; note: auto-compilation is enabled, set GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0
> > 	;;;       or pass the --no-auto-compile argument to disable.
> >
> > would be nice to have a flag to handle it the other way
> >
> > 	#!/usr/local/bin/guile -s --silent-auto-compilation
> > 	!#
> >
> > Did I miss something?
> 
> I always have this shebang now in my Guile scripts (might not work on
> fedora because the guile binary is guile3):
> 
> #!/bin/sh
> #-*-Scheme-*-
> exec guile --no-auto-compile -e main -s "$0" "$@"
> !#

The problem with --no-auto-compile is that without the compilation the error
messages (and stack traces) are... less than great.

But other than that I am using the same shebang.

> 
> -- 
> Olivier Dion
>

W.

-- 
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]