On 2017-06-05 12:11, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 05:53:32PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> > On 2017-06-04 13:53, Peter Bex wrote:
> > > Regarding time specifically, there are not many stand-alone programs
> > > that will use this macro, I think. It's more a thing for benchmarks
> > >
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 05:53:32PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Hey Peter,
>
> On 2017-06-04 13:53, Peter Bex wrote:
> > Regarding time specifically, there are not many stand-alone programs
> > that will use this macro, I think. It's more a thing for benchmarks
> > and such, so I'm not even sure
Hey Peter,
On 2017-06-04 13:53, Peter Bex wrote:
> Regarding time specifically, there are not many stand-alone programs
> that will use this macro, I think. It's more a thing for benchmarks
> and such, so I'm not even sure it must be part of library. It probably
> was in there because the macro
> I think we should strive to make library the first, and potentially the
> only, unit that the user needs to care about when distributing compiled
> C or compiling programs with "-explicit-use". These changes move things
> further away from that ideal by making programs that use the `time`
>
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:20:06PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> I'm concerned about the way these introduce an implicit dependency from
> the library unit to the internal unit.
>
> I think we should strive to make library the first, and potentially the
> only, unit that the user needs to care
Hi Peter,
Sorry for the delay, I should have responded earlier.
On 2017-06-03 15:07, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:29:12AM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 06:02:51PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > Just wanted to mention that I've
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:29:12AM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 06:02:51PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Just wanted to mention that I've already applied the first of these
> > patches; that one is clearly a nice change and definitely where those
> >
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 06:02:51PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Just wanted to mention that I've already applied the first of these
> patches; that one is clearly a nice change and definitely where those
> procedures belong, good call.
Is there a problem with the other ones, or have
Hi all,
I am struggling with the chicken.eval module. I've considered renaming
it to chicken.load, but then we still need to do something with "eval"
and the whole support machinery that it requires.
In any case, while pondering what to do with it, I noticed that the
lo-level hash table support
