Would the intention be to move all primary development effort over to
the 5 branch? How would 4.9 stability releases work? Most of the
proposed 5 work is cleanup. Where would feature work be expected to be
done? What work would be done before the first stable 5 release and what
work would
Hi,
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:13:43 +0200 Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
I would think that support for Chicken 2 3 should be dropped after a
Chicken 5 branch is made.
Yes, that sounds reasonable.
I didn't know we
On 19.08.2014 19:24, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
Sounds like a good first step, even though I personally would prefer
UCS-4 strings (constant lookup + modification and so on). But that
seems to be unpopular, AFAICT...
Wouldn`t that be possible to specify which internal string encoding is
used
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:59:58AM +0400, Yaroslav Tsarko wrote:
On 19.08.2014 19:24, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
Sounds like a good first step, even though I personally would prefer
UCS-4 strings (constant lookup + modification and so on). But that
seems to be unpopular, AFAICT...
Wouldn`t
From: Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR #1142 and upcoming changes
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:02:51 +0200
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:59:58AM +0400, Yaroslav Tsarko wrote:
On 19.08.2014 19:24, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
Sounds like a good first step, even though I
Hi,
The Chicken wiki still has an index of Chicken 3 eggs, although I do
think chicken-setup is no longer operational.
Perhaps now would be a good time to clean the wiki of vestigial
references to 2 3.
AIUI, this documentation is preserved for posterity and in case anyone
wants to forward
Hi,
I'd love to hear from some of the people using CHICKEN in their business
or for other Serious Projects (Kristian? Ivan? Andy?) how painful this
would be for them.
After taking some time to familiarise myself with them, these all sound
like big and important changes.
It took us a long
Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
Well, actually we might as well support several: ASCII/Latin-1, UTF-8
and UCS-2/UCS-4. Without UTF-8 it would just be a variable
element-size option. But I agree that this doesn't make maintenance
any easier... Let's think some more about this. We don't have to
In fact, as a user, I was just trying to bring some topics that are
practical issues and that we could piggyback with the breaking changes
to make a major release.
I'm not sure reorganizing the core and making it smaller justifies a
major release. I understand some changes caused by the
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:20:56AM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
I understand your concerns, but doing all the planned changes piece by
piece will be a massive maintenance effort and the compatibility hacks
required to have something halfway working during the transition will
be even more. I
I would think that support for Chicken 2 3 should be dropped after a
Chicken 5 branch is made.
Yes, that sounds reasonable.
I had also implicitly assumed that the modularisation changes would help
bring full R7RS support to core.
I think it is R7RS support will be in an egg for the time
To avoid doing this again soon, I think the other change you suggested
should definitely be included: the reworking of internal libraries by
splitting them up. Perhaps you already assumed this would be included,
I don't think I have seen this mentioned yet so I wanted to put it out
there.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
I would think that support for Chicken 2 3 should be dropped after a
Chicken 5 branch is made.
Yes, that sounds reasonable.
I didn't know we still supported CHICKEN 2 and 3. In what way is that
done? AFAIK the
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
Mostly cleaning up. Shrinking the core system will make maintenance
easier, and reduces the need to follow our usual patch-review process.
I fully agree that the patch review process would be untenable for
the kind of massive
Peter Bex scripsit:
Note that this does _not_ imply we should implement things that we
don't already have, just move the things we do have under the names
defined by R7RS. If we have something that's close to R7RS but not
identical, we may decide to tweak it to match R7RS. Except for
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 01:19:35PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Peter Bex scripsit:
Note that this does _not_ imply we should implement things that we
don't already have, just move the things we do have under the names
defined by R7RS. If we have something that's close to R7RS but not
I didn't know we still supported CHICKEN 2 and 3. In what way is that
done? AFAIK the server-side component for chicken-setup is no longer
active. Is it?
I wouldn't know myself, to be honest.
felix
___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
From: Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR #1142 and upcoming changes
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:23:22 +0200
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
Mostly cleaning up. Shrinking the core system will make maintenance
easier, and reduces
The way parameters and threads work right now is perfect for CHICKEN,
and there are various libraries that make use of this (most notably
Spiffy, which relies on it heavily).
It's also the only behaviour that makes sense, IMHO.
felix
___
Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
It is written:
I'm glad to see you are treating R7RS-small as scripture!
If an implementation supports multiple threads, then parameterize
must not change the associated values of any parameters in any thread
other than the current thread and threads created
Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
It's also the only behaviour that makes sense, IMHO.
Well, I think doing parameters in Chicken style but with only immutable
parameters is also a reasonable choice. Currently, no Scheme I know of
makes that choice. You can always portably emulate multiple parameters
The Chicken wiki still has an index of Chicken 3 eggs, although I do think
chicken-setup is no longer operational.
Perhaps now would be a good time to clean the wiki of vestigial references
to 2 3.
I also like the idea of adopting the r7rs library names.
-Ivan
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 1:13
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 04:53:22PM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
- I don't know how this is handled with henrietta - do we need a
separate CGI script running for this? It seems so, so the
core-branch will need to have different download URLs in
setup.defaults.
Perhaps, I'm not sure
Peter Bex scripsit:
I'd love to hear from some of the people using CHICKEN in their business
or for other Serious Projects (Kristian? Ivan? Andy?) how painful this
would be for them.
I would be pretty damned inconvenienced if the numbers egg were broken for
any substantial period of time,
Hi Felix and all,
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:53:22 +0200 (CEST) Felix Winkelmann
felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
I'm not sure how to go on with the CR-related changes.
All eggs that use queues, mmap, binary-search and eviction will break.
This is manageable, as salmonella will point them
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:00:46AM -0601, Alan Post wrote:
I used Chicken Scheme to bootstrap my company.
That's really cool!
As of a few months ago, I am no longer running any scheme code, it
has been ported to either C or Python.
What is/was the main reason you had to rewrite to Python? C
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 06:54:48PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:00:46AM -0601, Alan Post wrote:
I used Chicken Scheme to bootstrap my company.
That's really cool!
Thank you! It's the most successful Scheme program I've ever
written by a large margin. I was recently
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 04:41:54PM +, Mario domenech Goulart wrote:
Hi Felix and all,
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:53:22 +0200 (CEST) Felix Winkelmann
felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
This is just a proposal. What do others think?
Thanks for your message. This is all very exciting
Sadly, it seems that the last attempt at connecting a decent debugger to
Chicken has long since been abandoned:
http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/3/mayo
I, too, regularly end up hitting a wall with any decent sized application
that also relies on native compilation and interfacing with external
On 08/18/14 20:41, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
Hi Felix and all,
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:53:22 +0200 (CEST) Felix Winkelmann
felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
I'm not sure how to go on with the CR-related changes.
I wonder whether it isn't better to postpone releasing these changes,
From: Oleg Kolosov bazur...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR #1142 and upcoming changes
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 23:08:23 +0400
On 08/18/14 20:41, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
Hi Felix and all,
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:53:22 +0200 (CEST) Felix Winkelmann
felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com
Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
All eggs that use queues, mmap, binary-search and eviction will break.
This is manageable, as salmonella will point them out to us, but I'd
also like to eggify srfi-18, srfi-69, srfi-1/13/14 and perhaps srfi-4
as well and all that (including the /really/ massive
I do think it is time for an overhaul, and creating a new major version
branch is the right way to go about it.
Obviously it would take some time to port everything, but it seems that the
changes will be simpler than during the hygienic macros transition.
Ivan
On Aug 19, 2014 12:09 AM, Peter
Hi Felix, Oleg and all,
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 22:43:19 +0200 (CEST) Felix Winkelmann
felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
From: Oleg Kolosov bazur...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR #1142 and upcoming changes
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 23:08:23 +0400
On 08/18/14 20:41, Mario Domenech
Mario Domenech Goulart scripsit:
I'm not sure reorganizing the core and making it smaller justifies a
major release. I understand some changes caused by the core
reorganization may break code, but I'm looking at major releases from a
user standpoint. What immediate benefit do those changes
John Cowan scripsit:
It's only now with Python 3.4 (arguably 3.3) that parity with Python
2.7 was achieved. There is still no recommendation to convert working
2.7 applications (as opposed to libraries) and there may never be.
Here's a FAQ about the Python 2 to Python 3 transition, one of
I would think that support for Chicken 2 3 should be dropped after a
Chicken 5 branch is made.
If anyone desperately needs Chicken 3, would it not be better to migrate
the Chicken 3 stuff to another server?
I had also implicitly assumed that the modularisation changes would help
bring full R7RS
37 matches
Mail list logo
