[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#15160: Is --disable-posix excluding too much?

From: Jan Schukat
Subject: bug#15160: Is --disable-posix excluding too much?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:27:10 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8

Hello, it's been a while since I wrote here. Took me a while to figure out how to best tackle the native type vector alignment thing properly. Ended up writing my own binary data formats and the smaller dynamically created ones get their own SCM_DEFINE c constructors. The compiled guile byte-vector format isn't too efficient anyway atm. Once true elf-binaries are generated I guess that is different, since they can be directly and natively embedded. When that comes along I might look into it again. It's always good to consolidate and unify code that can be, to reduce redundancy.

Anyway, new issues arise. Using a scripting language somewhat portably for non-performance critical management tasks is pretty normal right? One of the prime uses. So, I'm walking directory trees now, and occasionally need to copy a file. But copy-file is not available when --disable-posix is configured. There are lot's of possible workarounds. Copying files in different languages is first semester programming assignments. The point is: a high level language shouldn't make you do this. File systems and paths are pretty much the same on all platforms guile runs on. And that's the the interface to the function: two paths. There is no reason to to not have that function everywhere.

Similarly for chdir. You can work around it, and the file tree walking functions make it mostly unnecessary. But I see no reason to leave it out. Any system guile runs on knows paths.

(oh, and --disable-posix is necessary to compile on/for windows/mingw, the cost of portability)


Jan Schukat

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]