Re: gplc on OSX Mavericks, the plot thickens...

I used .prolog because I thought that *was* a recognised extension. ".pl"
is interpreted by Perl by nearly every editor on the plant and ".pro" is
also for some other format too. Using ".prolog" means I have a hassle free
existence for myself!

As for the gplc...I realised that I had got the command line arguments the
wrong way around BUT I still can't rebuld gplc from source but that's for
another day.

I don't need to produce deliverable executables for a long time yet, I will
worry about it then.

Thanks,
Sean.



On 7 November 2013 12:40, "Michał Bieliński" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dnia 6 Listopada 2013, 23:58, Śr, Sean Charles napisał:
> > OK  that last email  those string of hex characters .. it&#8217;s a
> comment!
> >
> > 0x25 is %, 0x3A is :
> >
> > That&#8217;s in my source file I use comment blocks that are bounded like
> > this...
> >
> > %%::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> >
> > doesn&#8217;t explain why the source won&#8217;t build again though!
>
> Actually, it gives a fairly explicit hint.  Program gplc assumed the file
> to be already in binary format already in tried to link it without
> compiling.  Try to use standardized file extensions like .pl or .pro
> instead of .prolog.  Then gplc is not going to be as confused.
>
> There is an option for gcc to treat files with weird extensions as
> specific program type (e.g. -x c++ IIRC) but gplc has little need for it.
>
> --
> Michał Bieliński
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users-prolog mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog
>

_______________________________________________
Users-prolog mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog