Re: [Chicken-users] my first chicken 4 modules ;)
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Jim Ursetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also managed to port vector-lib.egg over. Minor issues encountered during the port: 1) Warnings aren't issued for unbound identifiers -- I spent a while tracking down a weird error and it turns out I forgot to import 'when' from chicken, along with numerous runtime failures when I forgot to import procedures. Some of that is inexperience. But the analogue of -check-imports would be nice. I guess once this is more mature then consistent import library data would be usable for this role. It should indeed be possible to warn in this case. I'll think of something. 2) Throw something like (display foobar), where foobar is unbound, into your module and at runtime it will actually display #unbound value without throwing an error. If a procedure is unbound, it similarly complains about 'Error: call of non-procedure: #unbound value' but this is easily tracked down using the call history. How can I reproduce this? I get a proper error message. 3) Importing and then redefining an R5RS binding, such as list-vector, inside a module results in 'Warning: exported variable multiply defined' and also overwrites the toplevel binding as soon as you link in the extension with (use). To avoid this I did the following: (import (except scheme list-vector vector-list vector-fill!) (prefix (only scheme list-vector vector-list vector-fill!) %)) and then used %list-vector as the core version. This worked fine. But I'm not sure if it's correct. I'm not sure how to handle this. Importing bindings does not introduce module-local bindings on redefinition, as it does in many other module systems. I have added a note to the manual about this. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] libsvm egg install problem
Hi, I've updated the egg (v1.1), which hopefully works fine. Please give it a try. I've been testing against debian libsvm package. --daishi At Tue, 27 May 2008 12:50:13 -0700, Tom Poliquin wrote: I'm trying to install the libsvm egg and not having much success. The libsvm egg requires the libsvm library. I downloaded the only libsvm library I could find from http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvm/ (libsvm-2.86) which after installation only generates an svm.o. I tried some older versions hoping to find one generating an 'so' file but was unsuccessful. Undaunted, (and not an shared library expert) I did this .. g++ -fPIC -Wall -O3 -c svm.cpp ld -shared -soname libsvm.so.1 -o libsvm.so.1.0 -lc svm.o I then moved the .so into my ~/lib directory with appropriate symbolic links .. libsvm.so.1.0 libsvm.so.1 - libsvm.so.1.0 libsvm.so - libsvm.so.1.0 and ran ldconfig I then ran the egg install (I'm using Chicken 3.1.0) and got .. The extension libsvm does not exist. Do you want to download it ? (yes/no/abort) [yes] yes downloading libsvm.egg from (www.call-with-current-continuation.org eggs/ 3 80) . gzip -d -c /tmp/chicken-setup-3-cowboyneal/downloads/libsvm.egg | tar xf - /home/cowboyneal/bin/csc -feature compiling-extension -s -O2 libsvm.scm Warning: extension `libsvm_core' is currently not installed /home/cowboyneal/bin/csc -feature compiling-extension -s -O2 libsvm_core.scm l ibsvm_core_wrap.c -lsvm -I/usr/include/libsvm-2.0/libsvm Error: unbound variable: documentation Looks like I also need a libsvm_core.so .. I'm guessing I haven't downloaded the right libsvm .. ? Any thoughts greatly appreciated, Tom ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ** XREA.COM -Free Web Hosting- http://www.xrea.com/ ** ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] miscmacros hygienic
I ported miscmacros (attached) to the hygienic branch and had a couple questions. First, is anyone using miscmacros? I was wondering about the following proposed change to the anaphoric macros: Current - Proposed (if* x y z) - (if* (it x) y z) (while* test body) - (while* (it test) body) (repeat* test body) - (repeat* (it test) body) I think it's nicer not to break hygiene by introducing a hidden 'it' identifier--like dotimes does not. In the port I actually implemented them both ways; you just have to uncomment the desired behavior. Thoughts? Also--the miscmacros module uses a few bindings from the chicken module: (import (only chicken when unless handle-exceptions let-optionals make-parameter)) However adding this import line to miscmacros is basically useless (as far as I can tell) because the macros are expanded in the caller's environment, so the caller is the one who needs to do the import from chicken. I'd like to know the proper way to handle this, if any. Does the caller need to explicitly import any dependencies? Similarly, as while* actually expands into an invocation of if*, it does not work for the caller to do (import (only miscmacros while*)), as the if* in the resulting expansion of while* will be undefined. In fact the following doesn't look hygienic at all: #;1 (module foo () (import scheme (only miscmacros while*)) (define-syntax if* (lambda (f r c) (error 'bad))) (while* (it ( 0 5)) (display it))) Error: during expansion of (if*1305 ...) - bad Is this a bug or am I just confused? miscmacros.egg Description: Binary data ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] my first chicken 4 modules ;)
On 5/28/08, felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) Throw something like (display foobar), where foobar is unbound, into your module and at runtime it will actually display #unbound value without throwing an error. If a procedure is unbound, it similarly complains about 'Error: call of non-procedure: #unbound value' but this is easily tracked down using the call history. How can I reproduce this? I get a proper error message. Sorry, complete false alarm. The offending file had declared (no-bound-checks). :P ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] miscmacros hygienic
On May 28, 2008, at 8:33 PM, Jim Ursetto wrote: Thank you Jim for your recent life on the bleeding edge. (And Felix for expanding space.) I haven't visited yet so anything I say is subject to ignorance. I ported miscmacros (attached) to the hygienic branch and had a couple questions. First, is anyone using miscmacros? I was wondering about the following proposed change to the anaphoric macros: Current - Proposed (if* x y z) - (if* (it x) y z) (while* test body) - (while* (it test) body) (repeat* test body) - (repeat* (it test) body) I think it's nicer not to break hygiene by introducing a hidden 'it' identifier--like dotimes does not. In the port I actually implemented them both ways; you just have to uncomment the desired behavior. Thoughts? I use the anaphoric forms but not in anger. Yeah, the above is more Scheme-ish but I suggest leaving it. Perhaps: (if/let (it x) y z) (while/let (it test) body) ... or (let/if (it x) y z) (let/while (it test) body) ... Also--the miscmacros module uses a few bindings from the chicken module: (import (only chicken when unless handle-exceptions let-optionals make-parameter)) However adding this import line to miscmacros is basically useless (as far as I can tell) because the macros are expanded in the caller's environment, so the caller is the one who needs to do the import from chicken. I'd like to know the proper way to handle this, if any. Does the caller need to explicitly import any dependencies? I hope not. Ahh, the return of the transitive monster. That will be unworkable for the user. Similarly, as while* actually expands into an invocation of if*, it does not work for the caller to do (import (only miscmacros while*)), as the if* in the resulting expansion of while* will be undefined. So dependencies are not automatically imported? Hum, hoisted by ... comes to mind. In fact the following doesn't look hygienic at all: #;1 (module foo () (import scheme (only miscmacros while*)) (define-syntax if* (lambda (f r c) (error 'bad))) (while* (it ( 0 5)) (display it))) Error: during expansion of (if*1305 ...) - bad Is this a bug or am I just confused? Should a user module (program?) local definition, syntax or not, override the dependent definitions in an imported form? Good question. snip Best Wishes, Kon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] miscmacros hygienic
On 5/28/08, Kon Lovett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use the anaphoric forms but not in anger. Yeah, the above is more Scheme-ish but I suggest leaving it. OK, I changed it back in my copy. The totally hygienic versions are still in there, just commented out. Anyway, hygienic if* is basically cond = and hygienic repeat* is just dotimes in the opposite direction. So no need to clutter things up. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] miscmacros hygienic
On May 28, 2008, at 9:18 PM, Jim Ursetto wrote: On 5/28/08, Kon Lovett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use the anaphoric forms but not in anger. Yeah, the above is more Scheme-ish but I suggest leaving it. OK, I changed it back in my copy. The totally hygienic versions are still in there, just commented out. Anyway, hygienic if* is basically cond = and hygienic repeat* is just dotimes in the opposite direction. So no need to clutter things up. I wonder if forms similar to 'and-let' would be useful? (let-while ([v1 f1] ... [vn fn]) BODY(v1 ... vn)) (let-while ([it (todo foo)]) (bar-ing it)) Best Wishes, Kon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
