On 5/9/07, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Folks,
Has anyone used the process-execute and/or process-spawn procs in the
Windows posix unit? My reading of the code leads me to believe they
do not function per the documentation. (And testing confirms this.)
The process-execute proc uses
On May 8, 2007, at 7:25 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Kon Lovett scripsit:
I just felt a little uncomfortable having /usr/local/bin/testbase-
driver.
Why?
It's excessively generic, like calling the Chicken interpreter
"interpreter" or "scheme" or something.
Oh it is not. It is at least as speci
Chicken Monk scripsit:
> The way I see it (and which is most likely incorrect :-): regular code
> has access to variables in the current and enclosing scopes, so the
> functionality is already there...
Yes and no. In particular, in compiled code the compiler can notice
exactly which procedure
Kon Lovett scripsit:
> >I just felt a little uncomfortable having /usr/local/bin/testbase-
> >driver.
>
> Why?
It's excessively generic, like calling the Chicken interpreter
"interpreter" or "scheme" or something.
--
You're a brave man! Go and break through theJohn Cowan
lines, an
On May 8, 2007, at 6:23 PM, Daishi Kato wrote:
On 5/9/07, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It depends on how testbase is the standard in Chicken, doesn't it? I'm
not sure about it, though.
We have 4 testing eggs (5 including the obsolete test-infrastructure)
plus a number of roll y
On 5/9/07, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 8, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Daishi Kato wrote:
>>
>> You need to get the testbase-driver egg, which will pull in testbase-
>> results & testbase.
>
> Oh, I only setup'd the testbase egg.
>
> Could the name of the executable be something like "c
Hi Folks,
Has anyone used the process-execute and/or process-spawn procs in the
Windows posix unit? My reading of the code leads me to believe they
do not function per the documentation. (And testing confirms this.)
The process-execute proc uses a DSSSL style argument list but the
body se
On 5/8/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/8/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a cheap-and-dirty way to do it; it's not perfect (especially
> because there's some redundant typing involved) but you can have it
> today:
>
> (define-macro (eval-with-locals locals
On May 8, 2007, at 5:34 AM, felix winkelmann wrote:
On 5/8/07, William Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
PS. How does adding a SRFI to your code affect performance?
You mean, as in "(require-extension srfi-1)"? It's compiled code as
well, so it should be acceptable. If you need maximum p
On May 8, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Daishi Kato wrote:
You need to get the testbase-driver egg, which will pull in testbase-
results & testbase.
Oh, I only setup'd the testbase egg.
Could the name of the executable be something like "chicken-
testbase-driver"?
Are you asking for a name change
On 5/8/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here's a cheap-and-dirty way to do it; it's not perfect (especially
because there's some redundant typing involved) but you can have it
today:
(define-macro (eval-with-locals locals expr)
`((eval '(lambda ,locals ,(eval expr))) ,@locals))
On 5/8/07, Chicken Monk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You'll have to pardon my ignorance... I am used to Python, where "eval"
and "exec" have access to all the variables that regular code has, even
in nested scopes. So I was wondering if something similar could be done
in Scheme.
Here's a cheap-a
felix winkelmann wrote:
2. Is it possible to get the "local environment" (which should have
access to b and c)? Is there even such a thing, or am I seeing this
completely wrong?
This is not possible in general, unless you really want to peek
into the internal representation of a closure.
Th
Hi folks,
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the proper usage of z3:encode-buffer, but
it seems to hang when I use certain strings as argument.
Here are some examples:
(use z3 (srfi 1))
;(z3:encode-buffer "") ; hangs
;(z3:encode-buffer "0") ; hangs
;(z3:encode-buffer "00") ; hangs
;(z3:e
Graham Fawcett scripsit:
> Hm. If I don't start proof-reading my posts, Google is going to
> associate me with "hard-core chicken performance"; and I'm not sure
> that's a good thing...
It's interesting what a diversity of topics you get when you actually
google for those words (no quotation mark
On 5/8/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...seems like a pretty *hard-core* introduction to me.
Unless you're doing *hard-core* numerical stuff, I doubt Chicken's
performance will ever disappoint you.
Hm. If I don't start proof-reading my posts, Google is going to
associate me with
On 5/8/07, William Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for the help. I now fully understand what was going on.
Great!
Most people wouldn't learn am new language with a problem quite as
difficult as what I'm taking on, but I have found from experience
that that's the BEST way to learn
On 5/8/07, William Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Felix,
Using (address->pointer number) does indeed do what I want.It allows
me to
pick up a user supplied integer in my "define-external" code.
However, it has
a rather bad side-effect.The code is handled in a dialog box. Using
On 5/8/07, William Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
PS. How does adding a SRFI to your code affect performance?
You mean, as in "(require-extension srfi-1)"? It's compiled code as
well, so it should be acceptable. If you need maximum performance,
it may be worthwhile to include the source
Hi Felix,
Using (address->pointer number) does indeed do what I want.It allows
me to
pick up a user supplied integer in my "define-external" code.
However, it has
a rather bad side-effect.The code is handled in a dialog box. Using
(g_signal_connect cbut "color-set" #$setColor
Graham Fawcett wrote:
On 5/6/07, William Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Graham,
This is a long example, but it's my actual code that now does exactly
what I want.
Thanks for posting your code. (A Chicken-based text editor would be a
great tool!) Forgive the long response, but it's not cl
On 4/30/07, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--
We are lost, lost. No name, no business, no Precious, nothing. Only empty.
Only hungry: yes, we are hungry. A few little fishes, nassty bony little
fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death. So wise they are; so just,
so very just.
On 4/27/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all.
Does chicken have a function that shows sharing in s-exps?
SRFI-38 can do this:
> (use srfi-38)
> (define a '(1 2))
> (define b (list a a))
> (write-with-shared-structure b)
(#1=(1 2) #1#)
The problem with SRFI-38 is that I don't
On 4/30/07, bryan rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
okay well, I started building with msys, had some problems with CMAKE
at first, when building got to the following part:
Linking C static library libchicken-boot.a
[ 62%] Built target libchicken-boot
Scanning dependencies of target libpcre-f
On 5/2/07, Shawn W. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So what does block actually do?
"(declare (block))" is essentially like "static" in C: it means that
the toplevel variables of a compiled library unit are not accessible
(and thus can not be modified) from outside of the current compilation
unit.
On 5/8/07, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 7, 2007, at 10:05 PM, Daishi Kato wrote:
> Done moving code, except for:
> - docs are just gone (I'm not yet familiar with wiki doc)
Still there. I copied, edited & renamed.
Thanks.
> - test code would not run (couldn't find out how t
On 4/29/07, Joshua Griffith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm attempting to package one low-level macro as a syntax egg. This macro
uses other helper functions and low-level macros to perform its task. Is it
possible to hide these other macros and functions, so that only the main
macro is exposed
On 5/2/07, William Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can anyone explain how I pass a pointer from Scheme into C. Oddly
enough #f is treated as a pointer, but nothing else seems to be.
#f is just a special case that allows or more convenient handling
of NULL pointers. As I wrote in a previ
On 5/3/07, Will M Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John,
> I'm a little unhappy with the generic nature of the names "matrix"
> and "params", as one might be using some other matrix package at
> the same time.
That's originally why I put it into a syntax-case module---can't
people import that mo
On 5/7/07, Alex Queiroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hallo,
I tried to install the crunch egg. It requires the format-modular
egg, which tries to install an object file (format-modular.o).
Chicken-setup, unfortunately, translates the file name to
format-modular.obj, which does not work with M
30 matches
Mail list logo
