Hi,
SRFI-18 states,
The mutex primitives specified in this SRFI do not implement recursive mutex
semantics; an attempt to lock a mutex that is locked implies that the current
thread must wait even if the mutex is owned by the current thread
so, I want a macro or procedure to support recursive
On 2008 Feb 25, at 00:19, Daishi Kato wrote:
Hi,
SRFI-18 states,
The mutex primitives specified in this SRFI do not implement
recursive mutex semantics; an attempt to lock a mutex that is
locked implies that the current thread must wait even if the mutex
is owned by the current thread
At Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:52:25 -0800,
Vincent Manis wrote:
On 2008 Feb 25, at 00:19, Daishi Kato wrote:
Hi,
SRFI-18 states,
The mutex primitives specified in this SRFI do not implement
recursive mutex semantics; an attempt to lock a mutex that is
locked implies that the
Hello everyone,
This weekend's hackathon was a great success. Fun was had by all, and lots
of work got done. Most importantly, a number of new people have become
more active in the project.
Summary
---
We have accomplished the following things:
- About twenty eggs got their old-style
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Peter Bex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello everyone,
This weekend's hackathon was a great success. Fun was had by all, and lots
of work got done. Most importantly, a number of new people have become
more active in the project.
Thanks, Peter, for
On 25 Feb 2008, at 11:17 am, felix winkelmann wrote:
Thanks, Peter, for organizing this. It was indeed very successful and
(even though work intensive) a lot of fun. You did a nice job of
coordinating the documentation effort and keeping up the spirit
on #chicken!
Yep, Peter was the star of
thank you both very much. just to be sure:
(1) should i be using a C_truep() around C_immediatep() like the other
predicate tests or is this ok:
if ( C_immediatep(w) ) {
if ( C_truep(C_fixnump(w)) ) {
...
}
else if ( C_truep(C_blockp(w))
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Heinrich Taube [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thank you both very much. just to be sure:
(1) should i be using a C_truep() around C_immediatep() like the other
predicate tests or is this ok:
if ( C_immediatep(w) ) {
if ( C_truep(C_fixnump(w))
On Feb 25, 2008, at 5:55 AM, felix winkelmann wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Heinrich Taube [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
thank you both very much. just to be sure:
(1) should i be using a C_truep() around C_immediatep() like the
other
predicate tests or is this ok:
if (
Hi,
swt should be fine if jni works well,
but it's not tested and I'm not going to maintain it.
On the other hand, I would like to continue to develop
wxchicken, which is not complete yet at all,
but I'm currently not working on it due to time limitation.
Any help would be welcome.
Daishi
At
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 06:27:31AM -0800, Kon Lovett wrote:
Thanks to everyone for all the work. I just wish test-
infrastructure wasn't translated since it is obsolete. The current
is testbase.
Even obsolete stuff should be moved to the wiki. Everything in one
place means everything in
Has anybody used ScmPkg http://hop.inria.fr/hop/scmpkg with Chicken?
Does it work well? How would one install a package from ScmPkg on
Chicken?
Alejo.
http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
Hello
I just wrote a Vim syntax file for svnwiki, mainly to learn how to
write a Vim syntax file :-) and to help editing Wiki pages too.
You can find it attached.
To install, just save it in ~/.vim/syntax/, creating the dirs if
necessary.
To activate it, just :set ft=svnwiki when you
Does anyone else finds the existance of both chicken-users and
chicken-hackers confusing? I've seen some threads initiated by people
crossposting (seems to be a fairly accepted usage, so I'm doing it on
this message) but then half the people reply in one thread and half in
the other, making it
I just wrote a Vim syntax file for svnwiki, mainly to learn how to
write a Vim syntax file :-) and to help editing Wiki pages too.
Thank you, Tobia, I can't wait to begin using it! :-)
Care to send it to the Vim-people (I don't know if these days you're
supposed to send it to their mailing
+1 -- There's no reason -hackers couldn't be brought back if the need
arose, right?
--Jeremy
On Feb 25, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Ivan Raikov wrote:
Cross-posting is quite annoying, I agree. Either we should
discourage cross-posting, or not use Chicken-Hackers. I don't think
that the two lists
On 2008 Feb 25, at 17:11, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
I just wrote a Vim syntax file for svnwiki, mainly to learn how to
write a Vim syntax file :-) and to help editing Wiki pages too.
Thank you, Tobia, I can't wait to begin using it! :-)
Care to send it to the Vim-people (I don't know
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:08:24AM +0900, Ivan Raikov wrote:
Cross-posting is quite annoying, I agree. Either we should
discourage cross-posting, or not use Chicken-Hackers. I don't think
that the two lists are so high-volume that merging would be an issue.
-Ivan
Hello, My name is
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:05:26PM -0800, Vincent Manis wrote:
On 2008 Feb 25, at 17:11, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
I just wrote a Vim syntax file for svnwiki, mainly to learn how to
write a Vim syntax file :-) and to help editing Wiki pages too.
Thank you, Tobia, I can't wait to
On 2008 Feb 25, at 17:19, Jeremy Sydik wrote:
+1 -- There's no reason -hackers couldn't be brought back if the
need arose, right?
--Jeremy
On Feb 25, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Ivan Raikov wrote:
Cross-posting is quite annoying, I agree. Either we should
discourage cross-posting, or not use
20 matches
Mail list logo
