Re: [Chicken-users] Which API to use (llrb)?

[Dan Leslie]

Whatever works with the doto macro?

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
  Original Message  
From: Jörg F. Wittenberger
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:47 PM
To: chicken-users
Subject: [Chicken-users] Which API to use (llrb)?

Hi all,

I did some more refinements to the LLRB-code I recently posted here.

However I got stuck on the inability to decide which API to use.

The idea is to have a type "binding-set" (is there a better name?) as an
alternative t alists.

However when it comes to `fold` I'm not sure if it is better to follow
the srfi-1 argument order (combiner-initial-set) or the srfi-69 style
order (set-combiner-initial).

At one hand trying to be a "drop-in" for lists it would better not
change the argument order wrt. srfi-1.

However the fold procedure from srfi-1 takes two arguments, the element
(for alists the key-value-pair) and the accumulated value. The fold
operation for "binding-set" is to be called with three arguments, key,
value and result-so-far. Just like srfi-69's hash-table-fold.

Therefore being 100% drop-in is not possible anyway. Therefore it might
be better to follow to srfi-69 order.

So which line of reasoning to follow? Which one of the following is
APIs "better"? Any reasoning I'm not aware of?

Best

/Jörg


A: srfi-69

(binding-set-fold set proc nil)

{{Proc}} must be a procedure of three arguments. It is invoked for
each element with the key, value and the accumulated value (nil for
the first element).

B: srfi-1

(binding-set-fold proc nil set)

{{Proc}} must be a procedure of three arguments. It is invoked for
each element with the key, value and the accumulated value (nil for
the first element).

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

[Chicken-users] Which API to use (llrb)?

[Jörg F. Wittenberger]

Hi all,

I did some more refinements to the LLRB-code I recently posted here.

However I got stuck on the inability to decide which API to use.

The idea is to have a type "binding-set" (is there a better name?) as an
alternative t alists.

However when it comes to `fold` I'm not sure if it is better to follow
the srfi-1 argument order (combiner-initial-set) or the srfi-69 style
order (set-combiner-initial).

At one hand trying to be a "drop-in" for lists it would better not
change the argument order wrt. srfi-1.

However the fold procedure from srfi-1 takes two arguments, the element
(for alists the key-value-pair) and the accumulated value.  The fold
operation for "binding-set" is to be called with three arguments, key,
value and result-so-far.  Just like srfi-69's hash-table-fold.

Therefore being 100% drop-in is not possible anyway.  Therefore it might
be better to follow to srfi-69 order.

So which line of reasoning to follow?  Which one of the following is
APIs "better"?  Any reasoning I'm not aware of?

Best

/Jörg


A: srfi-69

(binding-set-fold set proc nil)

{{Proc}} must be a procedure of three arguments.  It is invoked for
each element with the key, value and the accumulated value (nil for
the first element).

B: srfi-1

(binding-set-fold proc nil set)

{{Proc}} must be a procedure of three arguments.  It is invoked for
each element with the key, value and the accumulated value (nil for
the first element).

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] strange IUP canvas behavior - mouse clicks returning bad value

[Matt Welland]

I'm not sure how to narrow this problem down but I'd like to start with a
fresh build of chicken / IUP. However that process never seems to go well
for me. Has anyone recently installed the chicken IUP egg on 64bit Ubuntu
15.04 or a recent Debian and if so would you be so kind as to share your
recipe for success? I'd like to avoid losing several evenings trying every
permutation and combination of install strategies.

Thanks.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Thomas Chust 
wrote:

> On 2015-10-16 11:40, Matt Welland wrote:
> > [...]
> > this is failing on Ubuntu 15.04 but working ok on sles11.
> > [...]
>
> Hello,
>
> are the systems in question running on the same architecture? Do they
> have the same word size?
>
> My gut feeling says that the problem looks suspiciously like some
> calling convention or data type conversion issue.
>
> Ciao,
> Thomas
>
>
> --
> When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb.
>
> ___
> Chicken-users mailing list
> Chicken-users@nongnu.org
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users