Galen Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am using guile 1.3.4 on Debian frozen. These two should be equivalent
according to my understanding of Scheme:
This bug has been fixed in the CVS version of Guile.
Ole Myren Rohne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Exception during backtrace does occur in some situations on my Dec 16
16:05 build. I think it was there before as well, but I used to blame
guile-gtk for crashes during backtrace.
I think, then, that we safely can assume that this bug is not caused
2000-04-03 Mikael Djurfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* iselect.c (add_fd_sets): Insert empty statement after label.
(Thanks to Tim Mooney.)
bernard URBAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess when you use not gcc and gnu tools, this is to be expexted.
No, Guile should compile with "standard" UNIX tools, not just with GNU
tools. A Guile compiled with --enable-maintainer-mode needs GNU make,
but should be the only exception.
We should
Brad Knotwell Knotwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are a couple of recent build issues (NetBSD x86). I build guile
yesterday and I now receive the following error on startup:
ERROR: Unboudn variable: standard-eval-closure
This is a sign of using new ice-9 files together with an
bernard URBAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hum... ALL *.x files contain only a newline !!!
ALL *.doc are void !!!
Please try out
ftp://ftp.nada.kth.se/SANS/programs/guile/guile-1.3.5pre1.tar.gz
and report any problems that you might get (to [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
"Dale P. Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greetings,
This is probably an autoconf bug instead of a Guile bug, but I thought I'd send it
in anyway.
On my system, Linux kernel 2.2.14, autoconf detects that system calls are
restartable. When guile is configured without thread support,
Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
why do assq-ref and friends return #f when the key is not found, in
stead of #unspecified? This makes it kind of hard to distinguish
between an alist not containing KEY and (KEY . #f)
Well, that would make it hard to distinguish between an alist
Bill Schottstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think 'help' has trouble with goops entities:
guile-oops-0.1.8 is buggy. Please use 0.9.0.
Humph! I was using 0.9.0:
/home/bil/test/guile-oops-0.9.0/ ./guile-oops
guile (use-modules (ice-9 session))
guile (use-modules (oop goops))
Dirk Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The test for exactness if wrong here: Rationals (if supported) could
fulfill that predicate as well. I will apply the following patch:
diff -u -r1.208 boot-9.scm
--- boot-9.scm 2000/07/01 17:01:22 1.208
+++ boot-9.scm 2000/07/12 07:23:07
@@
Dirk Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- exponent is a negative integer -- result could be a rational if those
were supported. This could be handled nicely:
cond ((and (integer? z2) ( z2 0)) (/ 1 (integer-expt z1 (- z2
Shall I add this special case to expt?
Yes. It
Dirk Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In scm_make_struct, there is the following initialization sequence:
SCM_SET_CELL_WORD_1 (handle, data);
SCM_SET_CELL_WORD_0 (handle, (scm_bits_t) SCM_STRUCT_DATA (vtable) +
scm_tc3_cons_gloc);
scm_struct_init (handle, tail_elts, init);
I.
Dirk Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since I don't know if the removal of scm_struct_init from struct.h
is considered an API change, I will wait for approval before
applying that patch.
I appreciate that. In this case, I don't think scm_struct_init is a
meaningful part of the API, and I
Dirk Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That part of the struct code is a mess: The documentation and
implementation both hold inconsistencies.
[...]
It's actually only the documentation which is wrong. Remember that
this documentation was written fairly recently, so I think it is
Mikael Djurfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(make-struct vtable tail_array_size init)
(make-vtable-vtable user_fields tail_array_size init)
Oops. Need to fix these.
I think this must be the survival record for severe Guile bugs. :)
This one has been there from the (almost) very beginning when the
structs were implemented.
The following code segfaults because the vtable gets freed and the
freed memory reused before all structs using that vtable have been
Dave Cottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can anyone fill me in about what this type is, where it's supposed
to be defined, and/or what version of goops works with what version
of guile?
The latest released version (0.9.0 which you can find at ftp.gnu.org)
works with all Guiles except recent
set-procedure-property! doesn't do proper type check on first arg
multistring.el gets confused if a docstring contains an odd number of
quotes or certain combinations of backslahed citation marks.
The bug lies in the C parsing code provided by the cc-mode. Probably,
multistring.el should quit using that code.
Bill Schottstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ERROR: In expression (eval (list noexpand x592)):
ERROR: Wrong number of arguments to #procedure eval (x environment)
ABORT: (wrong-number-of-args)
[...]
emacs.scm: (not (procedure? (eval symbol) (interaction-environment
Thanks, I'll fix
Dirk Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
scm_misc_error
(name,
"Observers of `~A' have signalled the following errors: ~S",
scm_cons2 (env, ordered_errors, SCM_UNDEFINED));
^
(I assume that should be SCM_EOL.)
It's almost
Dirk Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I remember that the last time this bug was reported, the conclusion was
that this would require changes to psyntax.ss or so. Since I did not
understand anything within the corresponding files, I did not look any
further into it.
Thanks for the bug
"Dale P. Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
gensym is supposed to be called with a symbol, not a string. It still
fails.
I apologize for all of these incomplete fixes. I think I've been
trying to do too many things simultaneously lately.
What I should have done already from the start is to
Dirk Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I understand R5RS correctly, then eq?, eqv? and equal? should accept
exactly two parameters. The current CVS guile, however, accepts more
parameters as well. On the one hand, this seems to be a sensible
extension, but it should somehow be possible
"Lars J. Aas" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With Goops' generic methods, it seems like trailing arguments are
ignored when method arbitration is done. Take for instance this
example:
(define-method (hello arg) (display "1 arg\n"))
(define-method (hello arg arg2) (display "2 args\n"))
"Lars J. Aas" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With Goops' generic methods, it seems like trailing arguments are
ignored when method arbitration is done. Take for instance this
example:
(define-method (hello arg) (display "1 arg\n"))
(define-method (hello arg arg2) (display "2 args\n"))
Mikael Djurfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Lars J. Aas" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With Goops' generic methods, it seems like trailing arguments are
ignored when method arbitration is done. Take for instance this
example:
(define-method (hello arg) (displa
Michele Midrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.. -I./.. -I../libltdl -g -O2 -Wall
-Wmissing-prototypes -c net_db.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/net_db.lo
net_db.c:85: conflicting types for `inet_aton'
/usr/include/arpa/inet.h:69: previous declaration of `inet_aton'
make[1]: ***
Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Grabmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have looked through the top-level doc files of guile-core, mainly to
correct references to CVS repository locations, mailing lists etc.,
and corrected everything I found.
Thanks! I have applied
Martin Grabmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wow, the second report on this within 20 minutes ;-)
/home/bil/cl/ ../test/bin/guile-config --version
guile-config - Guile version 1.4.1
/home/bil/cl/ ../test/bin/guile-config link
ERROR: In procedure let*:
ERROR: duplicate bindings
I have a very strange build problem with the current CVS snapshot.
goops.info refuses to build because makeinfo can't find the @image
hierarchy.txt (see compile log below).
It seem to me like makeinfo only looks for the image file in the
current directory, which fails if we have a separate build
get
*one* error message...
Best regards,
Mikael Djurfeldt
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
Christian Neukirchen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Therefore I think, all macros used by exported guile functions have to
get exported too.
That is correct. Finally, that won't be necessary, but currently it
is. This has to do with the fact that the original implementation of
syntax-case macros
I wanted with a procedure-macro, but just wondered if the
syntax-rules style was valid.)
This is caused by a bug in syncase.scm. I've fixed this in CVS 1.7.0
and in the 1.6 branch. 1.6.2 will contain the fix.
2003-01-27 Mikael Djurfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* syncase.scm (guile-macro
that objects will get GC:d. For example, if the C stack happens to
contain an integer which happens to coincide with a reference on the
heap, that object won't get GC:d. A conservative GC only behaves
nicely in a statisticial sense.
Thanks for your observation.
Best regards,
Mikael Djurfeldt
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the latest cvs built on a recent i386 debian, srfi-1 for-each seems
to have stopped working,
* srfi-1.c (srfi1_for_each): Corrected argument checking for the
case of two argument lists. (Thanks to Kevin Ryde.)
Bill Schottstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the fact that procedure-source returns a wrong type error
if passed a procedure-with-setter is less than ideal:
Indeed.
* debug.c (scm_procedure_source): Handle all objects for which
procedure? is #t. (Thanks to Bill Schottstaedt.)
(Fixed
Roland Orre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A uniform vector of type double is read as a vector.
guile-user (array-prototype #i(1 2 3 4))
()
guile-user (array-prototype #s(1 2 3 4))
1.0
I'm mostly using 1.7 now (I'm in research, not production) but I hadn't
noticed this until now because most
Loading of the following code:
foo.scm:
--
(define-module (foo))
(define (encapsulate proc)
(lambda (_) (proc _)))
(display round)
(newline)
(define round (encapsulate round))
Execution of guilw-core/autogen.sh yields:
Makefile.am:24: required directory ./libltdl does not exist
autoreconf: automake failed with exit status: 1
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mikael Djurfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2004-04-22 Dirk Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(scm_m_define): Change order to first create binding and
evaluating the expression afterwards.
While this change works in the R5RS situation
Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd say a good behavior for 'define' then is the following:
- When the defined name has a local binding, use that binding.
- When the defined name has an imported binding, look up the value of
that binding and make a new local binding
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:35:18 +0100, Marius Vollmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have changed module-make-local-var! a bit:
(define (module-make-local-var! m v)
[...]
(let ((imported-var (module-variable m v))
(local-var (or (and (module-binder m)
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:55:44 -0500, Alan Grover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's confusing to have an object with class, superclasses, etc., but
not be an instance. Since class-of returns a value (the Goops
class), that implies it is a Goops instance.
Well, ideally every item of data would be a
I've compiled CVS HEAD on the EM64T platform (Xeon processor).
(random:uniform) gives results outside the intended interval [0,1[.
___
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
On 2/18/06, Mikael Djurfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've compiled CVS HEAD on the EM64T platform (Xeon processor).
(random:uniform) gives results outside the intended interval [0,1[.
I've now fixed this in CVS HEAD:
2006-02-19 Mikael Djurfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* random.c: Test
2006/12/1, Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
SZAVAI Gyula [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(use-modules (oop goops))
(define-class c ())
(define-method (* a (b c)) #t)
(* 0 (make c))
== 0
Thanks, that's a bug.
Are you sure?
If you want to use an operator which is common for numbers and c:s,
why
2006/12/4, Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
While nosing around nearby stuff I noticed
(* 0 1.0) = 0
(* 0 1+1i) = 0
but
(* 1.0 0) = 0.0
(* 1+1i 0) = 0.0
which seems a bit inconsistent.
Indeed.
R5RS Exactness reads like either
exact or inexact is permitted,
2006/12/5, SZAVAI Gyula [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Kevin Ryde wrote:
Mikael Djurfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Not entirely sure that the common zero is a good idea, but I tend
to think so.)
I suppose it's a question of whether * should do that, or leave it
up to the application.
I think
2006/12/6, Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only case I can think of where a common zero may not be good is
with matrices, where (* 0 matrix) = matrix could preserve the
dimensions of the input matrix in the output matrix.
I would have to dig for
2008/8/12 Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/8/12 Bill Schottstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
gcd is supposed to ignore factors of -1.
According to? (I'm not suggesting that you're wrong. I'd just like
you to be precise about your references.)
R5RS:
6.2.5 Numerical operations
-- library
2008/10/28 Mikael Djurfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/10/28 Mikael Djurfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/10/28 Bill Schottstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I believe this shows a bug in letrec:
guile (let ((x 1)) (let ((x 32) (y x)) y))
1
guile (let ((x 1)) (letrec ((x 32) (y x)) y))
Backtrace
2008/10/28 Mikael Djurfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/10/28 Bill Schottstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I believe this shows a bug in letrec:
guile (let ((x 1)) (let ((x 32) (y x)) y))
1
guile (let ((x 1)) (letrec ((x 32) (y x)) y))
Backtrace:
In standard input:
2: 0* (let* ((x 1)) (letrec ((x
2008/10/28 Bill Schottstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I believe this shows a bug in letrec:
guile (let ((x 1)) (let ((x 32) (y x)) y))
1
guile (let ((x 1)) (letrec ((x 32) (y x)) y))
Backtrace:
In standard input:
2: 0* (let* ((x 1)) (letrec ((x 32) (y x)) y))
2: 1 (letrec ((x 32) (y x))
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:01 PM Mikael Djurfeldt
wrote:
>
> (define-method (equal? (a ) (b )) ...)
>
> on the other hand, means that you want to *extend* the current behavior of
> equal? with a specialization to two strings. The method is then added to
> equal?, which in
Hi Rob,
I left GOOPS development at Guile version 1.8. The way this was then
intended to work was that
(define-generic equal?)
means that you want to create a new generic equal?. This discards the old
binding for equal?.
(define-method (equal? (a ) (b )) ...)
on the other hand, means that
Den tors 13 feb. 2020 12:37Ludovic Courtès skrev:
> Yay! It’s nice to see how 7dc90a17e03045c7cd8894b14b027b845b68aa4f is
> short and clear.
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
>
(You're lucky, Ludo', that we don't take that statement literally. :-))
Thanks!
>
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:14 PM Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> skribis:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:05:24AM +0100, Jan Synacek wrote:
> >> I have the following backtrace:
> >>
> >> Backtrace:
> >> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
> >> 1736:10 9 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
> >>
Fixed in commit 01bfd18f.
Thanks!
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:19 PM Vasilij Schneidermann
wrote:
> When I've tried porting existing elisp code, I've found that `(defun foo
> nil 1)` errors out (on Guile 3 and master) , but `(defun foo () 1)`
> doesn't. The following patch rectifies this by
This is applied in commit #88e70308.
Thanks!
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 10:09 PM Eugene Klimov via Bug reports for GUILE,
GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language wrote:
> * examples/box-dynamic-module/box.c
> * examples/box-dynamic/box.c
> * examples/box/box.c
> * examples/modules/README
> *
It (the link you provided) works for me. Can you try again?
Den tors 21 sep. 2023 15:12ahmad khizir skrev:
> Dear team,
>
> I tried to download a guile tar file from the below listed url, but it is
> not working.
> Please help to provide the correct url to download the guile tar file.
>
>
Unfortunately, I do not have time right now to look in the code, but this
might actually originally have been intended behavior.
The motivation for creating new accessor methods for child classes by
default could have been to ensure that it is possible to access slots using
a constant offset once
Fixed in commit 62501-d...@debbugs.gnu.org
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 10:58 AM jgart via Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's
Ubiquitous Extension Language wrote:
> ---
> libguile/list.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/libguile/list.c b/libguile/list.c
> index
Oops...
Fixed in commit 1ae50a7f80654f04d93d900e17f3160205700a75
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 8:36 PM Mikael Djurfeldt
wrote:
> Fixed in commit 62501-d...@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 10:58 AM jgart via Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's
> Ubiquitous Extension Lan
close 67487
Fixed in commit d8df317b.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 3:47 PM 無無 wrote:
> In <
> https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Modules-and-the-File-System.html
> >:
>
> When a program evaluates (use-modules (ice-9 popen)), and the
> module is not loaded, Guile searches for a
system* temporarily re-binds signal handlers to prevent the child process
from killing the parent. Thus, it is not thread safe with regard to SIGINT
(or SIGQUIT if available). So, your code has a race condition with respect
to the signal handler. This common resource can, in principle, be handled
68 matches
Mail list logo
