Having worked on various different packaging and library installation
systems, I've found it's always been a pain when there is either
(a) a loading process that takes time proportional to the number of
installed libraries (which either costs linear program startup time or
quadratic library instal
I'm a little confused about what the problem is. Could you give specific
examples?
I'm also unsure about why having a file-system cache will help. Other than
persistence, what advantage does having the cache in the file system
provide? I can see an argument that the file system forces a particular
> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 15:16:39 -0800
> From: Chris Hanson
>
> I'm a little confused about what the problem is. Could you give specific
> examples?
>
> I'm also unsure about why having a file-system cache will help. Other than
> persistence, what advantage does having the cache in the file sys
It sounds like we're talking about slightly different things.
The find-scheme-libraries! procedure is supposed to be called by an end
user who has a bunch of libraries that they potentially want to import.
It's not intended to be used during the import process, which works pretty
much as you sugge
> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 22:20:33 -0800
> From: Chris Hanson
>
> The find-scheme-libraries! procedure is supposed to be called by an end
> user who has a bunch of libraries that they potentially want to import.
> It's not intended to be used during the import process, which works pretty
> much as
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:32 PM Taylor R Campbell
wrote:
> Stepping back a moment from file systems and on-disk vs in-memory
> caches, can you summarize the usage model of this?
>
> Here's some of the relevant operations that I want to be able to do,
> illustrated with how a C system would do it
