Re: Should Emacs define site-lisp load-path for Dynamically-Loaded Modules?

[Björn Bidar]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:

>    The link you refer to doesn't contain any reference to site-lisp besides 
> *lispdir*.
>    I thought it was clear that I don't mean to define site-lisp but define
>    a second site-lisp as you say your self.
>
> site-lisp lives under datadir, hence the reference.
>
>    >    That makes me ask the questions should there be a second site-lisp for
>    >    dynamic modules in <libdir> by default?
>    >
>    > Are they architecture-dependent?  Are they libraries or other object
>    > files? Seems so, off the cuff sounds reasonable.
>
>    Did you read the manual?
>
> I've read the manual many times, doesn't mean I remeber each thing in
> it.  So please use a kinder tone, and assume that not everyone
> remebers everything.
>
>    Yes dynamic modules are per definition architecture-dependent after
>    they have been compiled as they use compiled languages such as C or
>    C++.

Sorry for the tone it wasn't my intend to sound like this.

I assumed that the point was clear, maybe the name Dynamic modules isn't 
verbose enough.