Re: creating stand-alone extended tclsh
- From: Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferrieux@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Apr 2007 06:54:02 -0700
On Apr 29, 2:29 pm, "Gerald W. Lester" <Gerald.Les...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
The aversion comes from experience.
The experience of constant rebuilds when a new version of an extension
(available pre-built in a binary) we use comes out or when we need another
extension.
That is not the situation described by the OP. He says he has app-
specific extensions; this means things he owns, and whose lifetime is
the same as his application. A "rebuild" must occur anyway when he
changes a single line of script.
Feel free to do as you like,
Good news. I was a bit afraid ;-)
experience tells most of us that is not the way to go.
Regardless of the situation at hand ? Are you alone with experience ?
BTW, version mismatch between executables is almost non-existent due to TEA.
You are much more likely to hit a problem, over time, that some of the
scripts you are using want version X and some want version Y of a packages.
This makes sense for a systemide install of Tcl of course. The case of
a captive Tcl inside a standalone executable is very different.
-Alex
.
- References:
- creating stand-alone extended tclsh
- From: Will Parsons
- Re: creating stand-alone extended tclsh
- From: David Gravereaux
- Re: creating stand-alone extended tclsh
- From: Alexandre Ferrieux
- Re: creating stand-alone extended tclsh
- From: Gerald W. Lester
- creating stand-alone extended tclsh
- Prev by Date: Re: creating stand-alone extended tclsh
- Next by Date: Re: creating stand-alone extended tclsh
- Previous by thread: Re: creating stand-alone extended tclsh
- Next by thread: Re: creating stand-alone extended tclsh
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|