[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role)
From: |
Neil Jerram |
Subject: |
Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role) |
Date: |
10 May 2003 12:32:21 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 |
>>>>> "Rob" == Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:
Rob> Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:
>> To avoid this happening, I suggest that we could solve this
>> problem by a mechanism that links Scheme code into a library or
>> executable at build time. This could be something like unexec
>> (in which case the source would already have been read and
>> stored in tree code), or it could be a linker tool that just
>> dumps plain source code into the binary - as though it was a
>> big const char[], but more convenient to use at build time.
Rob> That could be interesting. To some extent how we decide to
Rob> handle compilation will factor in here.
Yes.
Rob> If you thought large static scm fragments, were likely to be
Rob> common, I guess one thing that might make hacking easier
Rob> would be an easy way to do something equivalent to #include
Rob> <foo.scm>, i.e. a way you could hack the scheme part as a
Rob> scheme file, but then have the code end up incorporated in
Rob> and evaled by the .so file. Of course I guess anyone could
Rob> hack something like that up if they needed to with a makefile
Rob> and appropriate use of "cat"...
#include <foo.scm> would be very nice, but we'll probably need
something more dynamic as well. I don't see what you mean by cat
though.
Rob> Actually, I've been playing around with code that would make something
Rob> like this possible (as a dumb example):
Rob> (define (double x)
Rob> (c-syntax
Rob> (if ("SCM_INUMP" x)
Rob> (return (* x x))
Rob> (return ("scm_apply" ("scm_lookup" "+") x x)))))
I don't see how this helps - please explain.
Rob> Sure, but I was wondering what else might be needed. Of course I'm
Rob> not sure I have a clear idea of what kind of things might be
Rob> omitted...
I don't have a very clear idea myself yet. The main category in my
mind so far is almost all primitives - e.g. scm_catch, scm_setgid,
scm_set_object_properties_x - some exceptions being those concerned
with dissecting and constructing data - e.g. scm_cons, scm_list_p,
SCM_CAR, scm_vector.
Regards,
Neil
- Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), Ricard Mira, 2003/05/03
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), Neil Jerram, 2003/05/08
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), Rob Browning, 2003/05/08
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), Neil Jerram, 2003/05/08
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), Rob Browning, 2003/05/08
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), David Van Horn, 2003/05/09
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role),
Neil Jerram <=
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), Rob Browning, 2003/05/15
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), Paul Jarc, 2003/05/15
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), Bill Schottstaedt, 2003/05/09
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), Neil Jerram, 2003/05/13
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), Viktor Pavlenko, 2003/05/13
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), Bill Schottstaedt, 2003/05/14
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), Mikael Djurfeldt, 2003/05/15
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), Max Techter, 2003/05/16
- Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), Ricard Mira, 2003/05/18
Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role), tomas, 2003/05/09