karlheg(a)cathcart.sysc.pdx.edu (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
>>>>> "wmperry" == wmperry
<wmperry(a)aventail.com> writes:
wmperry> karlheg(a)cathcart.sysc.pdx.edu (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
>> >>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
>>
sb> Installation sez: Compiling in DLL support.
>>
sb> but the configure option is --with-shlib/--without-shlib.
sb> These need to match. Which one is the preferred name?
>>
>> I like `shlib' since I use Linux. `DLL' is a "Windows"
term,
>> isn't it? Or call it `dlopen', but maybe that's only the name
>> of the lib that does that on Linux.
wmperry> How about `DSO' like apache uses? Dynamic-Shared-Object
That's not bad. The "shared object" extension of `.so' could become
`.dso' then, on Linux. Perhaps on 95/98/NT and other Unices as well?
Yup - the extension doesn't matter at all. To make life easy for us here
when we auto-discover modules, we use different extensions on all of our
platforms for various types of shared objects. .cfm .mod .uga all work
just dandy (even on windows :)
wmperry> Or go whole hog and spell the #%!@#%! thing out. :)
I suppose for the `configure' switch, that would be appropriate. It
makes it readable, like long lisp variable names.
--with-really-spiffy-but-dangerous-dyanmic-loaading-code=yes
:)
-bp