Re: Initialization of load_path at startup

[Kim Hansen]

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:51 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 14-May-2008, Kim Hansen wrote:
>
> | On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:02 PM, John Swensen <address@hidden> wrote:
> | > I am having a strange problem with the load_path while working on 
> OctaveDE.
> | >  Below I have listed the results of the path() command just after startup.
> | >  I have been searching for how the load_path is initialized at startup and
> | > cannot figure out how in the world that extra line is getting injected 
> when
> | > I start up octave_main from OctaveDE, and it is not happening when simply
> | > running octave.
> | >
> | >
> | > First 3 lines of output of path() command in Octave when executed from
> | > Octave.app
> | > .
> | > /Applications/Octave.app/Contents/Resources/share/octave/site/m/startup
> | > 
> /Applications/Octave.app/Contents/Resources/libexec/octave/3.0.1/oct/i386-apple-darwin8.9.1
> | >
> | >
> | > First 3 lines of output of path() command in Octave when running in
> | > OctaveDE.app
> | > .
> | > ./Applications/Octave.app/Contents/Resources/share/octave/site/m
> | > /Applications/Octave.app/Contents/Resources/share/octave/site/m/startup
> |
> | I think this is the same bug as
> | http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=477556, and I also
> | think I have found a solution, patch is attached.
>
> I applied this change.
>
> Instead of sending bare diffs, it would help me if you can commit the
> changes to your local hg archive, then export the changeset with "hg
> export".

I will try to remember that. What about the changelog entry, do you
still want that in the email or should it be part of the changeset?

>
> | I am not really sure why we start with "." in the xpath variable, as
> | "." always is in path, I have just tried to fix the bug without
> | creating a new one.
>
> The idea was that there would be no special code to look for files in
> the current directory, so "." must be in the internal list of
> directories in the path.  The code that manipulates the path should
> ensure that "." remains first in the path.  So "." has to be added
> to the path somewhere.  Doesn't it make sense to start with that in
> the intialization code?

I expected it to be something like that, but then I was confused by
the fact that "." still was in the path even when the bug prevented it
from being added in the initialization.

-- 
Kim Hansen
Vadgårdsvej 3, 2.tv
2860 Søborg
Fastnet: 3956 2437 -- Mobil: 3091 2437