>> Also, post-hoc: your example is wrong, in the sense that you gave the >> compiled module the wrong name! You should name it ./obj/mod/X.go, not >> ./obj/mod/X.scm.go. If it then still not loads the .go, that’s a bug and a >> regression. >I'm pretty sure to test both .go and .scm.go under 3.0.10. >If I understand you correctly, you mean b.scm will try to find b.go, or at >least auto compile to b.go, right? Both .go and .scm.go can not deny what I >just described. And the default naming is .scm.go as what I can see in the terminal. Yes, you need to adjust the default naming. IIUC, the default naming is set up for Guile’s auto-compile cache, instead of for Guile’s load-compiled-path (these aren’t the same). (Confusingly .go are installed in subdirectories of a directory named ‘ccache’ (at least on Debian), but IIRC if you look at the .scm->.go mapping go, you’d see that the code for the auto-compilation cache is separated from the pre-compiled .go (and .cache/guile/2.0/ccache has a different layout), and since it is only updated at installation / package upgrades by copying over (pre-)compiled files, by definition it isn’t a cache.) No, I don’t mean that ‘b.scm will try to find b.go’. There is not reason for it to try that, and is somewhat against the point of compilation. Rather, b.scm is not loaded at all (except for some metadata: the time stamp). I also don’t mean ‘auto compile to b.go’. That’s against the point of the whole pre-compilation thing. Instead, when the module (mod a) is loaded (whether from mod/a.scm or obj/mod/a.go)), Guile module system is asked to load the module (mod b), and it sees mod/b.go exists in load-compiled-path and mod/a.scm exists in in load-path (and timestamps are ok), so it loads (obj/)mod/b.go. Since this mechanism is used for Guile’s own libraries as well ((system …), (srfi …), (ice-9 …), …), I would expect this to still work in 3.0.10. If you have proof of the contrary you should make a bug report about it.
>On Sun, Dec 15, 2024, 01:50 Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> wrote: > […] I don’t need a copy of my own e-mails. Best regards, Maxime Devos
