Talk:Executable library: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→executable Shared Objects?: Far fetched?) |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
::: The ''idea'' is for the library/shared object/module/... to be what is normally thought of as such for the language, accessed in the normal way for that language. Similarly when used as an executable it should be done in the normal way an executable is run in that language and accessing the same source. I want to allow a language the ability to mess with the content of their library-cum-program, (and maybe with the options used when invoking it in either mode?). For a compiled language, running the compiler as part of 'running' the library is not normal. The only way I could currently see a compiled language being able to do this is if their is some trick which allows a shared object when run to act like an executable, and when used as a library, e.g. left on LD_LIBRARY_PATH in Unix, to act as shared object library. |
::: The ''idea'' is for the library/shared object/module/... to be what is normally thought of as such for the language, accessed in the normal way for that language. Similarly when used as an executable it should be done in the normal way an executable is run in that language and accessing the same source. I want to allow a language the ability to mess with the content of their library-cum-program, (and maybe with the options used when invoking it in either mode?). For a compiled language, running the compiler as part of 'running' the library is not normal. The only way I could currently see a compiled language being able to do this is if their is some trick which allows a shared object when run to act like an executable, and when used as a library, e.g. left on LD_LIBRARY_PATH in Unix, to act as shared object library. |
||
:::: It's a bit hard to say what "the normal way" would be I have used plenty of programs which have required installers because they had so many moving parts. But, also -- in the case of compiled languages -- we are speaking of operating system distinctions here, and not language distinctions. (For example, consider the possibility of a program using [[wp:9p|9p]] to present entirely different images for the same file, depending on context. The protocol itself is language independent, but support for it is not operating system independent.) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 05:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::: You don't normally require the presence of the compiler at run time so I would expect any solution to not need a compiler as part of the solution. |
::: You don't normally require the presence of the compiler at run time so I would expect any solution to not need a compiler as part of the solution. |
||