Re: [RFC] Moving to Guile 2.2 and away from GUB

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Donnerstag, dem 25.11.2021 um 19:51 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> Le 24/11/2021 à 22:41, Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond 
> development a écrit :
> > This improves with compiled bytecode, as Jean replied, but this won't 
> > be included initially (I
> > forgot to mention this). We should definitely have it for the next
> > stable release, but I'm optimistic that this is possible.
> 
> 
> In my opinion, while not a requirement for switching
> to Guile 2, it would be really nicer (and wise to implement
> before removing Guile 1 support entirely)

That's exactly the thing that is *not* going to happen in that order,
at least not by me: Making the files byte-compilable will require many
changes (making all files modules on their own, as you write, plus
making sure that the different modules correctly depend on each other,
plus moving all calls to functions defined in C out of the parts that
are interpreted by the compiler, because they're not there unless we
run the full environment) which I think will require constructs that
are simply not available in Guile 1.8.

> to byte-compile scm/*.scm in the build system with 'guild compile'.

... plus 'guild compile' wasn't a thing in Guile 1.8, so we'd have to
do different things depending on which version of Guile we are
compiling for (probably doable). On top of all that, I'm not actually
sure it's a good idea to byte-compile during development because it's
really, really slow - I currently estimate that compiling all *.scm
files can easily take as long as compiling all C++ files.

> It currently fails because we load the files by just
> reading them without making them modules and the
> compiler doesn't know about our macros at compilation
> time. I haven't followed everything related to Guile 2,
> is there prior discussion of this?
> 
> Best,
> Jean

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part