IRC channel logs
2022-07-14.log
back to list of logs
<dadinn>i am looking into various ways of doing a shebang line for guile <dadinn>can someone suggest a comprehensive review of all the posibilities? I have tried plain "#!/usr/bin/guile \", and "#!/bin/sh \n exec guile -e main -s "$0" "$0". <dadinn>Just would like something to help me through the pros-cons of the different approaches <dadinn>would like my scripts to maximally portable across various linux distros <dadinn>oh also there is the "#!/bin/env sh \n exec guile ..." type <dadinn>at the moment I am using #!/usr/bin/guile and obviously that's the least portable. I would also prefer the exec call to take over the actula process, but not sure about those "$0" thingies at the end <dadinn>also in for Emacs there was this recommendation to add # -*- scheme -*- as the second line in the file... not sure if that's neccessary, I'm using Emacs with Geiser, and never had problems AFAIK <jpoiret>dadinn: what about simply "#!/usr/bin/env guile"? <rekado_>dadinn: that comment only tells Emacs to use scheme-mode when editing the file. You don’t need it. Alternatively you can put a different type of comment at the very bottom of the file. <lilyp>dadinn: the exec guile trick is the "most correct", but might cause emacs to mislabel your file as a shell script. IMHO adding mode: scheme to the file-local variables *at the end* is a better idea than at the top <drakonis>cwebber: where do i push fixes for typos on spritely.institute? <cwebber>drakonis: gonna open that repo super shortly... but could you just send me an email with the typo catches for the moment? <cwebber>drakonis: the vcs log of that is a giant mess and we're gonna clean it up before we publish it, which is on the very-near agenda :) <drakonis>cwebber: "The Spritely Networked Communities Insitute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public benfit corporation attempting to re-decentralize community on the internet." s/insitute/institute and s/benfit/benefit <drakonis>by the way, what's this about jonathan rees joining spritely? <batalie>having a haunt problem and curious if anyone can help me. i'd like my posts to have the prefix "/posts/" but want the collection page to be at the root level "/blog.html". but try as i might i can't get it to build anything but "posts/blog.html" <batalie>it seems like there should be an easy solution that doesn't step on the collection generator's toes too much <rekado_>I just add an invocation of pin-blog-post to the list of builders <rekado_>it’s not *quite* what you ask for because you’ll still have posts/blog.html <dthompson>batalie: yeah that's not a supported use-case at the moment. sorry about that. <dthompson>I could add an additional #:collection-prefix keyword argument that defaults to the same value as #:prefix to preserve existing behavior but allow for your use-case <dthompson>making changes to haunt has become an interesting exercise in backwards compatibility <dthompson>if I add a new option, the default has to preserve the existing behavior or else people's site structure might change and links would break. <batalie>i'm enjoying it either way. this is just the first hitch i've run into <dthompson>actually it will be slightly more involved than just adding another argument. I have a branch where I'm introducing even more flexibility into how file names are generated that deprecates the #:prefix argument to blog. <dthompson>as well as the #:prefix arguments to rss-feed and atom-feed <dthompson>why use a string that only allows for prefixing when you could instead allow for a function that can do anything? :) <dthompson>someone else presented me with a use-case where prefixing was insufficient <daviid>dthompson: couldn't you keep #:prefix, and allow a string or a procedure? this would be bw compat <dthompson>daviid: prefix is still supported and works as expected, but it produces a deprecation warning now. <dthompson>or rather it will produce a deprecation in the next release <cwebber>drakonis: Jonathan Rees does not work at the Spritely Institute at this point, but we do collaborate <cwebber>but they're someone I talk to about the tech stack a lot so maybe that's how it came up <cwebber>yeah he's in regular conversations with us and reviewing our tech stack, amongst others