[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Axiom-developer] Re: root chunks
From: |
C Y |
Subject: |
[Axiom-developer] Re: root chunks |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:48:12 -0700 (PDT) |
--- address@hidden wrote:
> Besides the argument that the algebra files contain more than one
> root chunk there is another difficulty with choosing a connection
> between filenames and root chunk names. At the present time I'm
> walking the system downcase all of the filenames. If there was a
> tight coupling between file and root chunk it would require that I
> also modify each file.
The only difficulty comes when extracting something other than the "*"
chunk - several files unique to that one chunk of code must be
generated by the tangle and compile routines. I suppose I could have
the lisps generate completely random file names for these cases but I
would prefer to have the generated files relate back to the chunk they
came from for debugging purposes. To illustrate the difficulty, let's
say I have two chunks: "bootstrap1.clisp" and "startup" Suppose I
need to tangle both of these out of the same pamphlet. I know how to
specify them, but I must tangle them to a destination file for
compiling. What name should I select? In the case of bootstrap1.clisp
the obvious choice is the chunk name, but in the case of startup it's
not so clear. Is it a lisp file, boot file, or what? If I see that
file lying around in the directory, where did it come from? On the
other hand, if I generate bootstrap1-startup.lisp, that works for
startup but makes a mess out of bootstrap1.clisp. If I tangle them to
randomfoo1.lisp and randomfoo2.lisp that solves the problem but makes
tracing a given file back to its pamphlet origins a bit harder.
I would prefer to have the target files for the tangle process chosen
automatically rather than being user or developer specified - that's a
detail no one should have to care about. The tangled source file is a
generated file. I would like to have a sensible rule for doing so, if
one can be found.
> In general I feel that there should be no correspondence between
> filenames and contents. The namespace and organization of files is
> not related to the namespace and organization of information.
In general, I agree. In the specific case of intermediate generated
files, I would like the filenames to retain some relationship to their
origin to aid debugging.
Cheers,
CY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel
and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
- [Axiom-developer] root chunks, daly, 2007/06/21
- [Axiom-developer] Re: root chunks,
C Y <=
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: root chunks, Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/06/22
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: root chunks, C Y, 2007/06/22
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: root chunks, Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/06/22
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: root chunks, Waldek Hebisch, 2007/06/22
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: root chunks, Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/06/22
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: root chunks, Waldek Hebisch, 2007/06/22
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: root chunks, Camm Maguire, 2007/06/22
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: root chunks, Stephen Wilson, 2007/06/22
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: root chunks, C Y, 2007/06/22
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: root chunks, Stephen Wilson, 2007/06/22