On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 02:49:43PM +, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
I think the versioning thing also affects the eggs in svn too. For
example, suppose right now you have egg foo at version 1.0. When
CHICKEN 5 is released, foo will be ported to CHICKEN 5. What version
will it be in
Am 09.09.2014 um 17:39 schrieb Oleg Kolosov:
On 09/04/14 13:30, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Am 29.08.2014 20:50, schrieb Oleg Kolosov:
On 08/23/14 19:35, Peter Bex wrote:
I've made a start on the wiki, at what we'd like CHICKEN 5 to be about.
I've remembered one more thing: why not stick the
* Designing a decent POSIX API is a hard task. I have not seen any
reasonably good API wrapper for that yet - they are either too
lowlevel (Basis, Ocaml, etc.), or too highlevel.
For now a modest refactoring would be enough.
[begin of short brain dump about the POSIX situation]
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote:
- The new syntax-rules foolishly changed the underscore to act as
a wildcard symbol, making it - strictly speaking - incompatible with
R5RS. I don't think it's a good idea to support this in core.
I think this has
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Felix Winkelmann
felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
IIRC, full R7RS-compatibility requires (import-for-syntax (r7rs)) or
something like this. I was wondering about that, since it would be
quite a barrier for portable code to have to take care of this. Or
can
Hi gentlemen,
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 22:57:02 +0200 Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:44:54AM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
So, in short: forget about unicode, the full numeric tower,
chicken-install, port-refactoring and everything but modularization,
the
Assuming egg authors won't create new repositories for their eggs for
CHICKEN 5, the henrietta-cache instance for CHICKEN 5 would still cache
versions that are only compatible with CHICKEN 4, although they will be
only meant to be used by CHICKEN 5. I think that's not a really serious
issue,
On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:29:21 +0200 (CEST) Felix Winkelmann
felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
Assuming egg authors won't create new repositories for their eggs for
CHICKEN 5, the henrietta-cache instance for CHICKEN 5 would still cache
versions that are only compatible with CHICKEN 4,
Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
I basically agree, but please note that UTF8-aware string-mutation
would have to invole become!, which is very inefficient.
True, but it is also very rare in core: only 8 uses, most of which
could be easily removed. (I exclude of course the
SRFI-13 and SRFI-14
On 09/04/14 13:30, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Am 29.08.2014 20:50, schrieb Oleg Kolosov:
On 08/23/14 19:35, Peter Bex wrote:
I've made a start on the wiki, at what we'd like CHICKEN 5 to be about.
I've remembered one more thing: why not stick the terminating '\0' at
the end of all strings in
Well, the problem are eggs that are not in our central repository.
I think the versioning thing also affects the eggs in svn too. For
example, suppose right now you have egg foo at version 1.0. When
CHICKEN 5 is released, foo will be ported to CHICKEN 5. What version
will it be in
Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
Thanks for clearing that up. I knew that your encyclopedic brain can
be relied on. I darkly recall having read it in CLTL2 by Guy Steele,
but wasn't sure where he got it from.
In this case it's Dr. Google who can be relied upon.
--
John Cowan
On 09/04/14 23:14, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
How hard is it would be to add to chicken an option to output a list of
module dependencies: ...
You can try the -debug M option, which lists files referenced via
require and its variants, including uses declarations. This does
currently not handle
This option looks interesting, it event seems to differentiate between
built-in and installed modules, but AFAICT it requires import libraries
to be already in place to output something. So, it can not be used to
gather compilation dependencies.
What I really need is a way for a given name
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:44:54AM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
Hello, Peter!
I generally agree with most proposed changes on this list (with the
exception of the idea to drop fluid-let, of course.) But it must be
clear to you that you already created a pony page. It is impossible
to do
Am 29.08.2014 20:50, schrieb Oleg Kolosov:
On 08/23/14 19:35, Peter Bex wrote:
I've made a start on the wiki, at what we'd like CHICKEN 5 to be about.
I've remembered one more thing: why not stick the terminating '\0' at
the end of all strings in internal representation? This looks pretty
Hi,
* Please use long, explicit library names, it's easier to remember
(there are many ways to abbreviate something, but only one way not
to - I forgot who said this, John will tell me, I'm sure.) And I
would also suggest to avoid using srfi-XXX as a module name, and
to use something
How hard is it would be to add to chicken an option to output a list of
module dependencies: files which it will finally try to dload
considering all renaming, functors, multiple definitions or whatever
corner cases? Something like:
chicken -emit-depends depends.out -analyze-only module.scm
Is swig stuff in the core really used?
No clue. AFAIK we don't really support it anymore since CHICKEN 3, but
I could be totally wrong.
This should be dropped. I would be surprised if the SWIG module for
CHICKEN stil works, and using bind is in the end much simpler.
felix
From: Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] Made a start with CHICKEN 5 proposal
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 11:33:59 +0200
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 04:26:58AM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Peter Bex scripsit:
I'd especially appreciate feedback on the core library names
I've made a start on the wiki, at what we'd like CHICKEN 5 to be about.
Please, do not make this into another pony page, only add things that
we really need to look at which require a rework in core which may be
backwards-incompatible.
Hello, Peter!
I generally agree with most proposed
On 08/23/14 19:35, Peter Bex wrote:
I've made a start on the wiki, at what we'd like CHICKEN 5 to be about.
I've remembered one more thing: why not stick the terminating '\0' at
the end of all strings in internal representation? This looks pretty
harmless but could make some common FFI uses a
2014-08-29 16:01 GMT-03:00 Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:50:31PM +0400, Oleg Kolosov wrote:
On 08/23/14 19:35, Peter Bex wrote:
I've made a start on the wiki, at what we'd like CHICKEN 5 to be about.
I've remembered one more thing: why not stick the
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 04:11:21PM -0300, Arthur Maciel wrote:
Peter, I remember you wrote about this on 2012, right?
http://www.more-magic.net/posts/lessons-learned-from-nul-byte-bugs.html
Correct, I think this is an important safety feature of a high-level
language. In fact, I was the one
On 08/29/14 23:01, Peter Bex wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:50:31PM +0400, Oleg Kolosov wrote:
On 08/23/14 19:35, Peter Bex wrote:
I've made a start on the wiki, at what we'd like CHICKEN 5 to be about.
I've remembered one more thing: why not stick the terminating '\0' at
the end of all
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 09:41:01AM +0400, Oleg Kolosov wrote:
On 08/27/14 11:00, Peter Bex wrote:
It sounds like you're looking for condition-case. I think this takes
care of the handling of various different kinds of exceptions in a very
elegant way, and it's actually my favorite part of
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 01:50:13AM +0400, Oleg Kolosov wrote:
On 08/26/14 11:06, Peter Bex wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:29:23AM +0400, Oleg Kolosov wrote:
On 08/25/14 15:30, Peter Bex wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:31:44AM +0400, Oleg Kolosov wrote:
Ah, I didn't understand that.
On 08/25/14 15:30, Peter Bex wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:31:44AM +0400, Oleg Kolosov wrote:
Is there a way to get rid of ##sys# prefix everywhere? It might be
matter of preference, but it makes the sources harder to read.
It was originally used as a guaranteed separate namespace. R5RS
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:29:23AM +0400, Oleg Kolosov wrote:
On 08/25/14 15:30, Peter Bex wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:31:44AM +0400, Oleg Kolosov wrote:
[explanation about ##sys# prefix]
I suspected that it is related to name clashes, now I see how exactly,
thanks for the detailed
Oleg Kolosov scripsit:
Sorry my lame use of match, there should be a better way, but it gives
the idea: if user already can throw whatever he pleases, why bother with
conditions at all?
Because they are a convenient way to pack up miscellaneous information
about the failure situation, that's
Mario Domenech Goulart scripsit:
I remember there is another breaking change that maybe we can fix in
CHICKEN 5: the behavior of set! on unbound variables.
R7RS takes an intermediate position between R5RS (allowed) and R6RS
(forbidden): it's allowed in the REPL, but forbidden in a module.
I
2014-08-26 14:30 GMT-03:00 John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org:
Mario Domenech Goulart scripsit:
I remember there is another breaking change that maybe we can fix in
CHICKEN 5: the behavior of set! on unbound variables.
R7RS takes an intermediate position between R5RS (allowed) and R6RS
On 08/26/14 11:06, Peter Bex wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:29:23AM +0400, Oleg Kolosov wrote:
On 08/25/14 15:30, Peter Bex wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:31:44AM +0400, Oleg Kolosov wrote:
Ah, I didn't understand that. If we make it part of an egg it gets its
own dedicated wiki page.
On 08/23/14 19:35, Peter Bex wrote:
Hello hackers!
I've made a start on the wiki, at what we'd like CHICKEN 5 to be about.
Please, do not make this into another pony page, only add things that
we really need to look at which require a rework in core which may be
backwards-incompatible.
Oleg Kolosov scripsit:
Regarding continuations I think that call/cc is an advanced feature
people brag about when advocating Scheme but not so useful in practise.
Well, I've been using it a lot in writing my set/bag package for SRFI 113,
albeit in a very stereotyped way:
(call/cc
(lambda
Alex Shinn scripsit:
F-operator
define-record-and-printer
static-modules
strictly-pretty
sql-de-lite
Okay, I'm convinced. Dot it is.
SRFI's are special anyway, but if we wanted we could provide both
names for them.
Indeed, it turns out that the r7rs egg special-cases them so
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:10:49PM +0900, Ivan Raikov wrote:
I think these are lofty goals, but it is way too much work for a single
release.
Perhaps modularising the compiler and refactoring the core modules should
be the goals for 5.0 release,
Those are the major breaking changes. I agree
Peter Bex scripsit:
I'd especially appreciate feedback on the core library names and
the things to kill from core. I will be expanding this page over the
next few days/weeks.
I've added lots of comments. Feel free to merge them in or strike them out.
--
John Cowan
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 04:26:58AM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Peter Bex scripsit:
I'd especially appreciate feedback on the core library names and
the things to kill from core. I will be expanding this page over the
next few days/weeks.
I've added lots of comments. Feel free to merge
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 11:33:59AM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
Thank you for the feedback. I've added my replies inline. I've added
fluid-let to the list of things to be removed. It's dangerously unsafe,
and it is completely unnecessary to have it in core. There are a handful
of uses of it in
Peter Bex scripsit:
It's not as bad as I initially thought; the current-*-port is handled as
a special case, so it's actually safe to update them with fluid-let.
This could be simplified by using parameters, though.
Actually, current-*-port are already parameters (or at any rate conform
to
Peter Bex scripsit:
Thank you for the feedback. I've added my replies inline.
My only response is about blobs vs. u8vectors: I am arguing that
there is no reason why these should be disjoint types in future.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
We call
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 4:50 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
Peter Bex scripsit:
As for library names, I favor fully spelled out names instead of
abbreviations, i.e. chicken.fixnum, chicken.flonum, etc.
Noted. I don't care much which way it goes, so if nobody argues
On 08/23/14 19:35, Peter Bex wrote:
Hello hackers!
I've made a start on the wiki, at what we'd like CHICKEN 5 to be about.
Please, do not make this into another pony page, only add things that
we really need to look at which require a rework in core which may be
backwards-incompatible.
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 11:35:26PM +0400, Oleg Kolosov wrote:
Thanks for the write up, it looks really promising.
While at it I would like to propose changing build system to CMake with
the following considerations:
I'd be willing to take a close look at it, if you can send a patchset.
I
I think these are lofty goals, but it is way too much work for a single
release.
Perhaps modularising the compiler and refactoring the core modules should
be the goals for 5.0 release,
and points 1.3-1.8 would be done as 5.x releases leading up to 6.0.
As for library names, I favor fully spelled
46 matches
Mail list logo
