🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan23.194202.20332@druid.uucp>, darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
|> ray@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Ray Lauff) writes:
|> >line of the compiler call.  Of course, using make files can
|> >simplify the process, but why not just have a line in the 
|> >main program such as
|> >
|> >#library "/lib/libc.a"

I like the idea, though I wouldn't include path names for standard stuff.
Rather, I would mimic the semantics for #include directives.

For example, we don't say 
  #include "/usr/include/math.h"
but rather
  #include <math.h>

Similarly, I would prefer to see something like:
  #include <libm.a>

to get the math library.

|> 
|> Two problems I can think of right off.  How do you know that the
|> function you want is in that library on every system and how do
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's kind of like asking, in reference to <math.h>, "How do you know
that the prototype for cos() is in that header file on every system?".
The answer is you ammend the Standard with information about what libraries
things are in. And in doing so for standard libraries, you open the doors
for things like:
  #library "userlib.a"

|> you know that the libraries reside in that directory?
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Agreed, which is why I suggested nuking the pathname for would-be
"standard" libraries, the same way as is done for standard header files.

-Chris

-- 
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com