Re: stack calibration

[Andy Wingo]

Hi Neil,

On Tue 31 Mar 2009 15:47, Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>   #!/usr/bin/env guile -e ....
>>
>> but we all know the problem with that.
>
> Only one argument being portably supported?  (I _think_ that's the
> problem, but I'm not so sure that I don't want to check that that's
> what you mean!)

Heh, yes. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

>> As far as needing the -e clause, it's so we can (use-modules (scripts
>> compile)) in addition to being able to run it as a script. Not that I
>> use that feature, but it is interesting.
>
> I don't use it either, and I don't think it's interesting enough to
> justify the oddness of the incantation.  I can't think of a scenario
> where it really makes sense to have a module and main program combined
> in the same file.  If the module part isn't generally useful it
> doesn't need to be written as a module.  If the module is generally
> useful, it should be given a place in the proper module tree (i.e. not
> scripts/...), and the script file should (use-modules ...) it.

I kindof agree. There's no need to have those scripts be executable
files -- we can have them be modules instead. Then guile-tools can just
use-module them, as you say.

But they can probably stay in the scripts directory, so as to mark them
as "runnable" -- so you can query "what scripts do I have installed?"
But at least they can go into module/scripts/. I'll do that at some
point if you have no objections.

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/