Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi David,

David Kastrup <address@hidden> skribis:

> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

[...]

>> 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).
>
> Little things like
>
> (define-public fancy-format
>   format)
>
> (define-public (ergonomic-simple-format dest . rest)
>   "Like ice-9's @code{format}, but without the memory consumption."
>   (if (string? dest)
>       (apply simple-format (cons #f (cons dest rest)))
>       (apply simple-format (cons dest rest))))
>
> (define format
>   ergonomic-simple-format)
>
> tend to make quite a difference depending on whether they are loaded or
> not before compiling.
>
> That one actually caused a lot of wasted effort on
> <URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1780>

The ticket is a bit too dense for me.  What’s the operational difference
between compiling and evaluating the above code?

>> The only reason you might want to compile files in topological order
>> is performance.
>
> And macros.  And redefinitions.  And module hierarchy.

I think you’re talking about what should be *re*compiled when a module
has changed, right?

What I was mentioning above holds for one-shot compilation of a set of
modules, but you’re right that things are trickier when it comes to
incrementally changing part of that module set.

Thanks,
Ludo’.