[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond |
Date: |
Sat, 10 Mar 2012 23:41:32 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux) |
Hi David,
Sorry for the late reply.
David Kastrup <address@hidden> skribis:
> Previous attempts have mostly exploded around the problem that we have
> something like
>
> (for-each ly:load init-scheme-files)
>
> in our lily.scm file, and the auto-compiler attempts to compile all of
> those files independently as far as I understand. Unfortunately, some
> of them contain macro definitions that other files rely on.
The order in which files get compiled does not matter; the semantics of
programs do not depend on whether code is being bytecode-interpreted or
just interpreted by (ice-9 eval).
The only reason you might want to compile files in topological order is
performance.
Does that answer your question?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
- Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond, (continued)
- Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond, Mark H Weaver, 2012/03/05
- Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond, David Kastrup, 2012/03/05
- Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond, Mark H Weaver, 2012/03/05
- Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond, David Kastrup, 2012/03/07
- Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond, Mark H Weaver, 2012/03/09
- Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond, David Kastrup, 2012/03/09
- Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond, Mark H Weaver, 2012/03/09
- Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond, David Kastrup, 2012/03/09
- Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond, Ian Hulin, 2012/03/10
- Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond, David Kastrup, 2012/03/10
Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond,
Ludovic Courtès <=