Martin Grabmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I use this module with the :rename option and
> `symbol-prefix-proc', the variable `foo' is exported without
> renaming, as shown below:
>
> guile> mgrabmue@tortoise (~): guile
> guile> (use-modules ((test) :rename (symbol-prefix-proc 'modu
Martin Grabmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> guile> (use-modules (ice-9 safe))
>
> Running with GUILE_WARN_DEPRECATED=detailed gives tons of
>
> [...]
> (You just re-exported `char-ci>?' from `(ice-9 safe-r5rs)'.)
>
> messages. (Compiling with --disable-deprecated does not work at all
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> guile> (define o (module-obarray (current-module)))
> guile> (intern-symbol o "hello")
You should not do this. Use functions like `module-obarray-ref' and
`module-obarray-set!' instead.
> although this proc is marked "deprecated" (along w/ every
Believed fixed! Please test.
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
Masao Uebayashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now a problem about uintptr_t seems fixed. (thanks!) But compilation
> of today's 'branch_release-1-6' fails by
>
> undefined reference to `GC_noop1'
Fixed as well, I think.
___
Bug-guile mailing list
Chris Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch fixes it, by deferring interrupts in scm_add_to_port_table
> and scm_remove_from_port_table:
Hmm, I don't think this is completely right. I think you can't
perform `extensive' operations like scm_must_malloc when interrupts
are disabled. Co
Dirk Herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> .I have re-implemented the string->number functionality to
> (hopefully) closely match the syntax as it is specified by R5RS.
> The new implementation tries to be as accurate as possible, i. e. a
> rational number a/b is first read as two exact integers
Chris Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 02:43:15PM +0200, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> > Hmm, I don't think this is completely right. I think you can't
> > perform `extensive' operations like scm_must_malloc when interrupts
> > a
[Finally picking up an olde thread]
Chris Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 02:43:15PM +0200, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> > Hmm, I don't think this is completely right. I think you can't
> > perform `extensive' operations like scm
Chris Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm using the stable CVS branch of Guile. This program eventually
> segfaults, because open-output-file and close-port (and open-file, etc)
> are not reentrant:
>
> (use-modules (ice-9 threads))
>
> (define (child port)
> (display "Hello" port)
>
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It just runs, but gets _very_ slow after about 90 iterations. I
> don't know why yet.
This is unrelated to threads. The GC is running all the time... but
why oh why? Tune in tomorrow.
Sorry, for the delay. Is this still an issue?
Eric Hanchrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Building Guile 1.4 on Cygwin fails:
>
> gcc -g -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -o guile .libs/guileS.o guile.o
> .libs/libguile.a -Wl,--export-dynamic
> .libs/libguile.a(net_db.o): In function `scm_resolv_
Chris Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What did you do exactly? How did you configure your guile?
>
> Originally, I configured with --with-threads --enable-maintainer-mode.
> Then, while trying to figure out why it was segfaulting, I noticed that
> Guile was using pthreads, which I was tr
Michael Carmack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can the unistd.h bit be altered in the configure.in script on your end,
> so I don't have to remember to make the change myself in the future.
This has been done already in CVS. Does the change not work for you?
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the fact that i can't cite the reasoning by pointing to some design docs
> can probably be considered a bug. :-/
We have "Naming conventions" in HACKING, although it does not list
reasons...
___
Bug-guil
Ken Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Building the srfi subtree doesn't work because the .la files are
> created in the build tree, not the source tree.
Fixed, thanks!
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listin
Michael Carmack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This affects 1.5.4, but not 1.4 or 1.3.2a. Apparently in some sort of
> recursive configure, the original configure attempts to pass environment
> variables, but during 'libltdl' this seems to cause a problem.
This is probably caused by libltdl using
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the code following produces this output (w/ "guile -s bug.scm")
> on guile-1.5.4:
>
> (# ())
> (# (1))
> (# ((1 2 3)))
> (# JAY KAY (#:j JAY #:k KAY))
> (# JAY KAY (#:j JAY #:k KAY 1))
> (# JAY KAY (#:j JAY #:k KAY (1 2 3)))
>
> it seem
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What should we do here? Is there a reason at all for keeping the
> -left and -right procedures?
I can't see any. Away with them! (I'll do that.)
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> so what's the idiom to isolate the non-keys rest-args? i can't believe
> everyone is writing `remove-keys' (like me!)...
In Common Lisp, there are no non-key rest-args when you have keyword
parameters. After the required and optional arguments, th
AJ Kertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having problems compiling guile.
What version of Guile are you using?
> I'm running an compaq alpha and i'm using the f77 compiler.
There might be issues with a 64bit architecture such as the Alpha that
have only recently been fixed, so plea
Chris Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 05:51:23PM -0500, Eric Gillespie, Jr. wrote:
> > guile> (string-index "/path/to/blah" #\/ 1)
> > ERROR: In expression (string-index "/path/to/blah" #\/ ...):
> > ERROR: Wrong number of arguments to #
> > ABORT: (wrong-number-of-ar
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>From: "Golubev I. N." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 16:47:29 (GMT)
>
>Yes, if `and-let-star-compat.scm' never ever will be generated in
>build time (so that right version of it will appear in build dir).
>
> from lookin
"Golubev I. N." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You could also do it like this
>
> To be frank, in my original patch I just stole (known to be robust)
> code from `install-*DATA' target generated by automake. And if what
> you describe passes all tests, why not contact automake maintainers to
This should be fixed now.
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
gt; cause configure to assume the usleep return type is 'int'.
Thanks!
2001-10-14 Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* configure.in: Do not use an absolute path for when
checking for return type of usleep. Thanks to Michael Carmack.
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Fix may be simply to replace `gentemp' by `gensym' everywhere in
> srfi-11.scm, but I'm not sure.
Yes. That reminds me that we need to fix gensym...
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gn
Michael Carmack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem below still seems to be present in a recent CVS checkout.
> It seems that the environment variables that I have set are causing
> 'configure' to fail once it enters libltdl.
Libltdl is not contained in the Guile CVS. It is copied into th
Michael Carmack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The specific problem you are having seems to be that the
> > libltdl/configure script is produced by a different autoconf version
> > than Guile's configure script.
>
> Hmm. Do you know of a way to resolve this? Should I just try to avoid
> setting
Ola Rinta-Koski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> guile 1.5.4 can't be configured with
>
> env CPPFLAGS=-I/cyber/include CFLAGS="-I/cyber/include -L/cyber/lib"
>CXXFLAGS=$CFLAGS LIBS=-L/cyber/lib ./configure --prefix=/cyber
Oops. The reason is that configure is generated by autoconf 2.52, but
l
Dorai Sitaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ice-9/syncase.scm provides a procedure datum->syntax-object that
> insists that its first argument be a syntax-object that is an
> identifier.
>
> This is an unnecessary restriction, and removing this check makes
> writing low-level macros easier, beca
Dorai Sitaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'll just trust you on this. Could you provide a ChangeLog entry that
> > describes the change?
>
> Hi Marius. Here's my stab at it:
>
> ice-9/psyntax.ss: Removed assertion in
> datum->syntax-object that checked if the first
> argument
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> thanks for the bug report. i have started to look at this.
If we can fix the bug that is great, but if it's too hairy, we can
just remove local-eval. Local-eval is weird critter...
___
Bug-guile mailing
Aubrey Jaffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [jaffer@aubrey munspectra]$ guile --version
> Guile 1.4
> ...
> [jaffer@aubrey munspectra]$ guile
> guile> (expt 2 -1)
> ERROR: In procedure integer-expt:
> ERROR: Argument out of range: -1
> ABORT: (out-of-range)
>
> is fixed by this patch:
Thanks!
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This bug has been fixed in unstable CVS, by removing the lines at the
> end of (ice-9 debug) that unconditionally enable debugging. Is there
> any reason why we shouldn't fix it in the same way on the stable
> branch?
This change would be too far reachi
Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Saturday's cvs of guile-core:
> Using automake 1.5, autoconf 2.52,libtool 1.4.2
>
> minor
> doc/tutorial was missing mdate-sh after configuring (chugged along after
> copying it from doc/ref).
This file should be installed by "autogen.sh". I have
Kyle Cronan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> The following command causes my version of guile (couple months old
> 1.7.0 CVS) to segfault reliably:
>
> guile> (array? (make-uniform-vector 2 #t) #t)
>
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> singp (obj=0x2374) at unif.c:
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Matt" == Matt Wette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matt> Guile 1.5.4 (1.4 also) says that symbols are arrays.
> guile> (version)
> Matt> "1.5.4"
> guile> (array? 'abc)
> Matt> #t
>
> scm_array_p takes an optional arg. If
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I also found the slib file Template.scm an implementation for this
> function. When I copied the definition of gentemp from Template.scm
> into ice-9/slib.scm, the above program works as expected.
That's the right thing to do. Could you prepare a patch? Thanks!
__
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Marius> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> This bug has been fixed in unstable CVS, by removing the lines
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, wouldn't a better fix be to include a prebuilt
> guile-procedures.txt in the distribution? If I understand correctly,
> all we would need to do is
>
> - add guile-procedures.txt to EXTRA_DIST
>
> - remove the `else' branch of the `if HAVE_MAKE
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Marius> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> I'm not convinced. How can peopl
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This reminds me of something else. I believe we were going to write
> some instructions to distributors on how to build a generic Guile for
> including in a distribution. Has that been done yet?
Not that I know of. It's a "release critical bug". :-)
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Do we say that we don't want to fix `(array? car) => #t)' now because
> >> Guile has behaved this way for a while?
>
> Marius> Yes, exactly. It wont be fixed in the stable branch.
>
> Sorry again; I didn't realize that we weren't plannin
Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 11 March 2002 13:39, Marius Vollmer wrote:
>
> > This file should be installed by "autogen.sh". I have automake
> > 1.4-p4, and after removing doc/ref/mdate-sh, I get
> >
> >
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know. It's not huge, but it is rather longer than the `about
> 10 lines' guideline that I've heard mentioned before.
>
> Marius, can you advise?
Hmm, well, I'm no expert on this but here are some thoughts (with a
conclusion., even :).
The FSF
Hi,
I'm having problems with the new way of handling the TODO file, in
both branches. It has moved from guile-core/TODO to
workbook/tasks/TODO.
When invoking "make dist", the file does not exist and there is no rul
to create it. Rather, the dist-hook target copies it from the
workbook.
Howeve
Sigh, I've seen this coming...
guile-snarf writes its $cleanfile into the $srcdir, which is not a
supported thing to do during a VPATH build.
(This was uncovered by a simple "make distcheck", which thankfully
write-protects the source directory. I hope everybody uses "make
distcheck" freely bef
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> what is a "VPATH build", specifically?
A VPATH build is when you compile in a directory other than the source
directory. This is useful when you want to compile a package for
different configurations but from a common source. The name stems
from t
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>A VPATH build is when you compile in a directory other than the source
>directory. This is useful when you want to compile a package for
>different configurations but from a common source. The name stems
>from the fact that it is imp
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm seeing automake errors, like these, which cause autogen.sh to
> fail:
> [...]
> My automake is 1.4-p5.
I don't know where your specific errors come from, but we now seem to
require at least autoconf 2.53, automake 1.5, and a matching libtool
(not su
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, build is fine now. Sorry for missing the new requirement.
Not your fault, there was no such requirement until very recently.
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listin
Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 20 March 2002 16:51, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> > Sorry, I tested with the wrong file. But automake will also install
> > doc/tutorial/mdate-sh for me:
> >
> > $ rm doc/tutorial/mdate
"Neil W. Van Dyke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Currently (latest Guile 1.5.4 from CVS), keyword arguments to the Goops
> "make" method that are not handled do not generate errors.
>
> Unless I misunderstand the way that Goops is to be used, I think that
> the default behavior should be to cons
"Neil W. Van Dyke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi. When using Goops from the latest 1.5.6 CVS, specifying a primitive
> thunk for the #:init-thunk slot property of a class causes a
> segmentation violation.
Thanks! I have recorded this as bug 'init-thunk-needs-closures'.
> [...]>
> I don't
"Neil W. Van Dyke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unless I'm making a stupid late-night error, there appears to be a bug
> related to Goops class redefinition in Guile 1.5.6 from CVS...
Thanks! I have recorded this as bug 'goops-class-redefinition'.
_
Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or I should say "empty applications".
Thanks! Recorded as bug 'syncase-quotes-excessively'.
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
"Richard Y. Kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As far as I can tell from reading guile documentation for version
> 1.5.4., scm_make_gsubr is deprecated. scm_c_define_gsubr seems to be
> the new name. However, the guile manual still refers to the old name.
> Here is a patch that updates the docu
"Richard Y. Kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Patches for data-rep.texi and gh.texi are given below.
Thanks, applied!
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I copied various followups to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but no firm
> conclusion was reached on any (except 6). Can you see them there?
> If not, I could send them to you privately.
I see them, thanks! I get back to this case by case.
___
"Nelson H. F. Beebe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sun Solaris 2.7 and 2.8:
> [...]
> FAIL: syncase.test: (ice-9 syncase) loads
>
> Sun Solaris 2.8:
> [...]
> /usr/local/sparc-sun-solaris2.7/bin/ld: c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> This bug exists in Guile 1.4.
Thanks, I have recorded this as bug 'eager-funpos-checking'.
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) writes:
> I'm building guile 1.5.6, and I get this error from "make check":
Thanks for the report. This has been fixed already in our sources.
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) writes:
> I have guile 1.4.1 installed in an unusual place, so PREFIX/lib
> isn't in the usual search path for shared libraries. It seems guile
> should always search PREFIX/lib, preferably before the systemwide
> directories and after those listed in $LD_LIBRARY_PA
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Will MacOS X be officially supported in the future?
>
> personally, i don't see the value of "official support" at this time in
> theory or in practice (guile maintainership is pretty losing, IMHO). by
> the same token (also personally), i'd lik
Dirk Herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I assume that the problem is also relevant for the newer branches.
> There, we could think of providing a public improper-list-copy in list.c
> instead of providing it privately within optargs.scm. Do we want that?
Yes, that looks like the better op
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SRFI-1 list-copy can copy dotted lists. Maybe we can just use it.
But ours can't since it is the core list-copy! Bugger!
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/ma
"Steven G. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guile/guile-1.5.6.tar.gz
We don't currently have access to alpha.gnu.org so we can't rebuild it
after it after it has been cracked.
> ftp://krusty.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/pub/guile/snapshots/
Oops, I could've sworn tha
Eric Hanchrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Node `Further Reading' says that "Teach Yourself Scheme in Fixnum
> Days" is at
> http://www.cs.rice.edu/~dorai/t-y-scheme/t-y-scheme.html,
>
> but in fact it appears to be at
>
> http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/dorai/t-y-scheme/t-y-scheme
Eric Hanchrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> guile-1.6.0/doc/ref/version.texi says
>
> @set UPDATED 21 April 2002
> @set UPDATED-MONTH April 2002
> @set EDITION 1.5.7
> @set VERSION 1.5.7
>
> Oughtn't EDITION and VERSION be 1.6.0 ?
Yes. I've added an item to our release check
Greg Troxel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are two apparently spurious CVS directories in the 1.6.0 tarball.
Thanks, I have added code that removes them during "make dist".
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
P Pareit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the info file for guile at node "The Basic Guile Package" the
> version info is still written for version 1.5.7. At the same page
> the sequence of command to install guile is:
Thanks, I fixed this.
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF
P Pareit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the info node "Creating a Procedure" there is a typo:
Fixed, thanks!
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/ma
"Rolf-Alois Walter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I tried to build Guile 1.6 on AIX 4.3 there occurred
> a 'stack overflow':
That seems strange. Can you try to add
(debug-set! stack 0)
to the file guile-1.6.0/scripts/snarf-check-and-output-texi, after the
'define-module' statement?
P Pareit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the info file at node "Symbol Props":
>
> - Scheme Procedure: set-symbol-property sym prop val
>
> should be:
>
> - Scheme Procedure: set-symbol-property! sym prop val
Fixed. Thanks!
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4
Christoph Groth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ~$ guile
> guile> (define l '((4) (2) (5) (1)))
> guile> (sort! l (lambda (a b) (< (car a) (car b
> ((1) (2) (4) (5))
> guile> l
> ((2) (4) (5))
You should do
guile> (set! l (sort! l ...))
'sort!' returns the new sorted list, it doesn't store
Dirk Herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd say introduce scm_defined_p for consistency, but keep the old version
> as deprecated for some time. We don't have to get rid of it soon. This
> could for example be scheduled for guile 2.0. Then, you have both
> consistency and backwards compati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (I.Sheldon) writes:
> With a simple test of starting guile and then typing `(quit)', this
> reduced the number of warnings I was getting from 19270 to 19014.
Since this reduction is so small, I'm inclined not to apply your
patch. What do others say?
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B B
Michael Vanier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have put the file into /usr/lib and it still couldn't find it!
This is (another) bug in libltdl. It first tries the ".la" extenstion
and then should continue with the ".so" extension. However, it
incorrectly stops when no ".la" file could be found
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marius> Since this reduction is so small, I'm inclined not to
> Marius> apply your patch. What do others say?
>
> Do the warnings indicate real problems, or are they false positives?
> If real, we should fix them; if false, we shouldn't, because
Michael Vanier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, it's even more hosed that you realize :-(
Oops, did you configure Guile with "--enable-ltdl-install"? Sorry, I
forgot to tell you about this.
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
Michael Vanier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm pretty happy to see guile catching up with other scripting languages.
> I'm especially happy with how easy it is to write extensions; I don't know
> of any other scripting language that has such a trivially simple extension
> mechanism.
I'm very h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm using guile-1.6.0 and srfi-19 for date stuff.
> It seems that the week-numbers are not calculated correctly, as it
> returns week 0 for all dates between 2002-1-1 and 2002-1-12. All other
> weeknumbers after the 12th are 2 off.
I find this date mangling stuff quit
Christof Boeckler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Solaris 8 I had the following error while executing 'make' (configure
> was successful):
It looks like Sun's make does not understand the "$<" construct, which
I find really strange as the man page of make mentions it
(mysteriously). It might b
Joost Helberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If not, can you fix it? :-)
>
> Not necessary.
Ok, thanks!
> Is there a way to extend srfi-19, or to make up a new one?
I hope so. I'm not really familiar with the SRFI process, but it
looks like you need to start a new SRFI to bugfix an exist
Christof Boeckler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then it worked on Solaris 8 with gcc 3.0.4, GNU make 3.79.1.
> I hope, that is helpful information for all you gurus ;-)
It is, thanks!
I've fixed eval.h as you describe, but I'm unsure why this is
necessary. ANSI C does not specify in what places
Orm Finnendahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> after compiling and installing guile 1.6.0 I get the following error
> on a Debian with 2.4.19 kernel when trying to use libreadline as
> specified in guile's info manual:
Please try configuring Guile with the option "--enable-ltdl-install".
That will
Eric Hanchrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Invoke the snippet with `guile -s snippet.scm'. Note the total lack
> of output.
The process exits before it can produce any output. "guile -s" exits
as soon as the main thread exits. (The builtin simple-format is
probably fast enough to produce outp
Bill Schottstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ alot of good stuff about Mac OSX. ]
Thanks for the detailed report! Could you condense this into a patch
that we can apply?
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
___
Bu
Bill Schottstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It appears to be a compiler bug.
Ok. We have seen this already, in a different place. It's good to
know that it is a compiler bug and not some property of ANSI C that we
would need to take into account.
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E
Eric Hanchrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is guile 1.6.0
>
> $ /usr/local/guile1.6/bin/guile -q -c '(begin (display (expt 0 3)) (newline))'
> 1
Thanks! It's fixed in CVS (both branches).
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
___
Bill Schottstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> in iselect.c the HAVE_UNISTD_H macro is used before
> it has any chance to be defined.
Thanks! Fixed in both branches.
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
___
Bug-gui
jblazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> test2.cpp: In function `void register_procs()':
> test2.cpp:12: invalid conversion from `
>scm_unused_struct*(*)(scm_unused_struct*)' to `scm_unused_struct*(*)()'
> */
You need to use an explicit cast in C++:
gh_new_procedure("test_function",(SCM (*)(
jblazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> scm_eval_string((scm_unused_struct*)"(test_function 4)");
You can not just cast a char* to a SCM. Where did you get that idea?
(Maybe there is some misleading stuff in the manual, that's why I
ask.)
You should either use scm_c_eval_string,
scm_c_eval_
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Marius> Note also that (ice-9 format) is not thread safe...
>
> And also -- if it makes any difference -- not async safe.
Christopher Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I distinctly remember sending a patch to fix this to either bug-guile or
> guile-devel a lng time ago, but I can't find it in the archives. I'm
> surprised it's not fixed in 1.6.0, but maybe it's because I never sent
> the patch in...
I'm hesit
Jonathan Andreasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> forgive my naivity, but how do you implement this fix?
You need to install a new Texinfo version.
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAI
Stanislav Brabec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> there is a small typo fix in guile-1.6.0, causing disfunctionality of
> some applications, namelly TeXmacs.
Thanks for the report! This has been fixed already in CVS and will be
in Guile 1.6.1, which should be out soonish.
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B
Marko Rauhamaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Guile manual doesn't state that basically all writable memory of
> a process participates in GC:
Hmm. More needs to be said to get a accurate picture of how GC works
in Guile.
The Guile GC does only manage objects that are represented as a value
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marius/Rob, should this go into the stable branch as well?
Yes. (The way I understand it, it is a fix for something that didn't
work before at all, right? It doesn't change existing behavior,
right?)
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E F
101 - 200 of 296 matches
Mail list logo
