From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: [d.love@dl.ac.uk: dynamic loading of native code modules] Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:34:59 -0500 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1018744673 12399 127.0.0.1 (14 Apr 2002 00:37:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 00:37:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16wY1g-0003Ds-00 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 02:37:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16wY00-0003kE-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 20:36:08 -0400 Original-Received: from dsl-209-87-109-2.constant.com ([209.87.109.2] helo=defaultvalue.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16wXz0-0003do-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 20:35:07 -0400 Original-Received: from raven.i.defaultvalue.org (raven.i.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892F644B2; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:35:00 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by raven.i.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EC0072D86; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:34:59 -0500 (CDT) Original-To: ttn@glug.org In-Reply-To: (Thien-Thi Nguyen's message of "Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:06:43 -0700") Original-Lines: 31 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2 (i386-debian-linux-gnu) Errors-To: guile-user-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:167 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:167 Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > alternatively, we need to document *why* 1.6 chooses to rob the > users so, at least to ourselves. "This has been found to be too > tricky, and is no longer supported" is, although not dis-honest, > still pretty lame. This was not done to "rob" anyone. It was done because (after a lot of heavy use of the shared lib system), the previous "automagic" loading was in some cases a little too smart for it's own good. It made it difficult to create a module that needed several shared libs, or a shared lib that served several modules. It also didn't allow any easy way to work around problems in libtool (which are still serious) from the scheme level. I'll comment more on this later, but for part of the issue see workbook/bugs/versioning-of-extensions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to a more user-friendly, higher-level interface, but IMO we need a sufficiently flexible alternate (or lower-level) interface first, and in the process we need to come up with a coherent solution that includes shared-lib-esque versioning for scheme level modules (i.e. via use-modules). We also need to make sure that our interface abstracts the lowest levels enough so that we can work around any libtool "issues". I have a good idea of how I think most of this should look, but was planning that this wait until 1.8. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org Previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C 64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user