[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SRFI-13 again [was: Re: string vs list processing]
From: |
Marius Vollmer |
Subject: |
Re: SRFI-13 again [was: Re: string vs list processing] |
Date: |
20 Apr 2001 18:05:01 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 |
Martin Grabmueller <address@hidden> writes:
> I had thought about just adding a directory `srfi' to the
> distribution, which contains the SRFI-13 and SRFI-14 modules I wrote
> and possibly others, and which installs the Scheme modules under
>
> <prefix>/share/guile/1.4.1/srfi
>
> and the libraries under
>
> <prefix>/lib
>
> Then no changes to the core would be necessary and the modules could
> get loaded with (use-modules (srfi srfi-13)).
This is a good plan. Please proceed at your leisure!
> Which leads me to another problem: I think I'll have to change the
> name of the modules, now that SRFI-14 is in. The problem is that
> SRFI-13 and SRFI-14 are not independent, as the string library uses
> character sets. Is there a possibility to make this dependency work
> with compiled modules?
Yes, I would think so. Actually, this would be a good example, why I
don't want to be clever with shared libraries.
> Or simpler: What happens when two Scheme modules load the same shared
> library and each shared library installs primitives? Do they get
> defined twice, as two different procedures?
It depends on which `dynamic-link' and `dynamic-call' functions are
executed. For example, when you have two modules (written in Scheme),
that both execute this code
(dynamic-call "foo_init" (dynamic-link "libguile-foo"))
then the library will be linked only once (because lt_dlopen will
notice that libguile-foo has already been linked on the second
call), but "foo_init" will be called twice.
Consequently, the actions of "foo_init" are executed twice, in the
context of two different modules. This might work, or it might not.
For example, when you register a smob twice, you will lose.
So, initializing a shared library twice should be avoided.
Please commit your code. We can then sort out all difficulties.
- Re: string vs list processing, (continued)
- Re: string vs list processing, Masao Uebayashi, 2001/04/16
- Re: string vs list processing, Sascha Ziemann, 2001/04/16
- Re: string vs list processing, Masao Uebayashi, 2001/04/16
- Re: string vs list processing, Michael Livshin, 2001/04/16
- Re: string vs list processing, Bill Gribble, 2001/04/16
- Re: string vs list processing, Michael Livshin, 2001/04/16
- SRFI-13 again [was: Re: string vs list processing], Martin Grabmueller, 2001/04/17
- Re: SRFI-13 again [was: Re: string vs list processing], Dirk Herrmann, 2001/04/19
- Re: SRFI-13 again [was: Re: string vs list processing], Martin Grabmueller, 2001/04/19
- Re: SRFI-13 again [was: Re: string vs list processing],
Marius Vollmer <=
- Re: SRFI-13 again [was: Re: string vs list processing], Martin Grabmueller, 2001/04/23
- Re: SRFI-13 again [was: Re: string vs list processing], Marius Vollmer, 2001/04/24
- Re: SRFI-13 again [was: Re: string vs list processing], Martin Grabmueller, 2001/04/25
- Re: SRFI-13 again [was: Re: string vs list processing], Marius Vollmer, 2001/04/30
- Re: SRFI-13 again [was: Re: string vs list processing], Rob Browning, 2001/04/20
- Re: SRFI-13 again [was: Re: string vs list processing], Per Bothner, 2001/04/19
- Re: SRFI-13 again [was: Re: string vs list processing], Martin Grabmueller, 2001/04/19
- Re: SRFI-13 again [was: Re: string vs list processing], Per Bothner, 2001/04/19
- Re: string vs list processing, Martin Grabmueller, 2001/04/17
- Re: string vs list processing, Jorgen 'forcer' Schaefer, 2001/04/17