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

[emacstheviking]

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" <address@hidden> 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
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog