Am Sonntag, den 02.11.2008, 12:42 +0100 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
...
The other solution is the lawyer way - Dünnbrettbohren in German.
The best solution however seem to have a look at wikipedia and ask
around whether this license would be ok:
http://web.mit.edu/~emin/www/source_code
Thanks Tobia for the analysis.
Am Sonntag, den 02.11.2008, 12:42 +0100 schrieb Tobia Conforto:
John Cowan wrote:
felix winkelmann scripsit:
Ugh. Sorry, not compatible.
Sure it's compatible. LGPL code can be used as part of a larger
work under any license: it is not viral.
It's
Hi all,
Am Dienstag, den 28.10.2008, 11:37 +0100 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
If you agree to use smarter data structures in the scheduler, I'll take
my time to expand my proposal.
Here we go!
Attached a slightly modified scheduler.scm and a file rbtree.scm.
* At the end of the day, we
Am Dienstag, den 28.10.2008, 09:33 +0100 schrieb felix winkelmann:
Thanks for the patch, Jörg. I'm impressed how deeply you hack the
scheduler.
Thank you for writing a clean code to begin with making this an easy way
to walk on!
Using a smarter data-structure for the fd-list makes sense,
Hi Felix,
thanks for your explanation. Now at least I know that I'm not closely
missing the easy route.
Nevertheless, there might be a not yet fully discovered bug around.
See:
Am Dienstag, den 14.10.2008, 10:56 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
Desperately: get an example how to save some
Forget it! Stupid me!
Am Dienstag, den 14.10.2008, 16:08 +0200 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
#|
;; WORKAROUND: this one seems not to work.
(import (prefix srfi-35 srfi-35:))
Sure it does not! This one is much better:
(import (prefix srfi-35 srfi35:))
(define condition? srfi35
Am Sonntag, den 12.10.2008, 22:55 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just noticed that my srfi-35 files does not do enough.
At the end there is a:
(import (rename srfi-35
(condition? srfi35
Am Freitag, den 10.10.2008, 11:19 -0700 schrieb Elf:
i'd recommend the r5rs primitive 'write' instead of 'display', 'printf', etc,
if you want the external representation of your code. :)
That's what would have recommended until a few weeks ago, when I found
write to be the source of an
and find the right import trick to rebind a global
identifier -- plus this ugly declare statement I'd like you to help me
get rid of anyway).
Am Donnerstag, den 09.10.2008, 17:46 +0200 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
Am Donnerstag, den 09.10.2008, 12:07 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008
Am Freitag, den 10.10.2008, 21:48 +0200 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
a) I could expand it at compile time into the unrolled for-each loop.
That's quite a lot of code to be executed just once, isn't it? (Not the
typing, that's a macro's one time work. The run time code is my concern
here
I just noticed that my srfi-35 files does not do enough.
At the end there is a:
(import (rename srfi-35
(condition? srfi35:condtition?)
(message-condition? srfi35:message-condition?)
(condition-message srfi35:condition-message)))
(set! condition?
Am Donnerstag, den 09.10.2008, 12:07 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday I tried to convert my code to the module system. But that
failed. For the time being I managed to get along without modules
Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 09:29 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm seeing a dark spot in the future...
I understand that this needs some getting used to. We are fundamentally
changing the whole syntax
Am Dienstag, den 07.10.2008, 09:41 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that match was gone and found matchable from the eggs
positioned as if it was the suggested alternative. Or am I missing
Hi Felix all,
I ran into a deep mess when I started to use modules to get my
import/export warnings back.
Currently I'm fixing those imports and can't compile any useful result
anyway. But either I'm missing something - for instance a module to
import - or hell is coming closer each step:
#!/usr/bin/csi -s
;; Hi All,
;; I'm afraid it happened again: the test case I sent out did *not*
;; exercise the EBADFD situation.
;; We need to do a little more. There has to be asynchronous i/o.
;; Here an extended version.
;; This is a multi player scene. Hence we
( require-extension
;;
I guess I have a better test case for you.
plus1 was my 1st attempt to simplify the code. Too much however, this
one prints 2. len has almost the same structure - but breaks.
cat EOF t-lambdalift.scm
(define (plus1 a)
(define (plus b)
(+ a b))
(plus 1))
(print (plus1 1))
(define
Hi,
I noticed that match was gone and found matchable from the eggs
positioned as if it was the suggested alternative. Or am I missing
something?
Now let's try:
(print (match '(lambda (a b) (+ a b))
((_ llist body ...) (vector llist body ...
(uses match) on chicken 3 did
#!/usr/bin/csi -s
;; Please try:
;; This is a multi player scene. Hence we
( require-extension
;;
srfi-18
;; [and
posix
;; for i/o].
)
(let ((title On The Sinking Ship))
;; let['s]rec[call] some common sense
(letrec ((chop-head (lambda () (exit 1)))
(definately (lambda
Hi,
I'm afraid let-location is not working in trunk:
cat EOF t-location.scm
(print Testing let-location\n)
(define test-location
(let-location
((again bool #f))
(lambda ()
((foreign-lambda*
int
(((c-pointer bool) again))
*again=1; return(1);)
Hi,
I lifted a piece off the library and compiled it with -lambda-lift
The result does not work at all.
The relevant code example is in ##sys#read here:
(define ##sys#read
(let ([reverse reverse]
[list? list?]
[string-append string-append]
[string string]
Hi Felix (and all),
I appreciate the work, which went into hygienic chicken. It's probably
time for me to eventually learn to write hygienic macros.
But there's one feature I already miss in chicken: -check-imports. I
really, really loved to get alerted when I miss or misspell a
declaration.
Am Samstag, den 27.09.2008, 15:14 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current trunk still leaves threads in the ##sys#timeout-list when a
thread-join! joins successfully and the timeout is not reached.
No test
The current trunk still leaves threads in the ##sys#timeout-list when a
thread-join! joins successfully and the timeout is not reached.
No test case, take my word for it please. I've seen them in the thread
listing and I've seen the joining thread getting unblocked by the left
over timeout when
Am Freitag, den 19.09.2008, 23:30 +0200 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
The attached patch fixes ##sys#thread-kill! wrt. to join timeouts.
The attached fix adds code to mutex-lock! and mutex-unlock! to remove
the thread from the timeout-list when a timeout was supplied and the
thread
yet another instance of left over entries: threads unblocked by i/o
should not be any longer on the timeout list, otherwise the next timeout
*could* be quite short. ;-)
Am Sonntag, den 21.09.2008, 13:31 +0200 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
Am Freitag, den 19.09.2008, 23:30 +0200 schrieb Jörg F
Hi all,
these days Felix asked for a test case of multiple entries of the same
thread in the ##sys#timeout-list -- I don't have any, but I've got
around to nail it down.
The attached patch fixes ##sys#thread-kill! wrt. to join timeouts.
Besides the fix it includes a compatible modification to
Argh! Sorry.
The fix I sent is not that complete. Attached a better one, which
touches srfi-18.scm too.
Am Freitag, den 19.09.2008, 23:17 +0200 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
Hi all,
these days Felix asked for a test case of multiple entries of the same
thread in the ##sys#timeout-list
Am Dienstag, den 09.09.2008, 08:55 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I still wonder, whether it's intention or another bug that the same
thread often appears more than once in the timeout queue?
That would
Am Sonntag, den 07.09.2008, 22:42 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I've been wondering why the ##sys#timeout-list contained so many
entries.
In scheduler.scm I found (##sys#delq t ##sys#timeout-list
Hi,
I managed to have a finalizer raise an exception. This ran into a tight
loop in ##sys#force-finalizers. This patch will ignore them.
/Jörg
Index: library.scm
===
@@ -4250,6 +4257,7 @@
(define ##sys#run-pending-finalizers
Hi all,
I've been wondering why the ##sys#timeout-list contained so many
entries.
In scheduler.scm I found (##sys#delq t ##sys#timeout-list) - but that
should not remove any threads from ##sys#timeout-list since the latter
is a list of pairs (timeout . thread). This diff should do a better
job:
Am Donnerstag, den 04.09.2008, 10:57 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PATH=yourmingwpath:$PATH make PLATFORM=cross-linux-mingw
PREFIX=yourprefix install
What is this supposed to build? The host system
Am Dienstag, den 02.09.2008, 10:01 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
Hi!
Try:
PATH=yourmingwpath:$PATH make PLATFORM=cross-linux-mingw
PREFIX=yourprefix install
What is this supposed to build? The host system, the target system or
both?
It did not work for me: looks for chicken.exe
Hi all,
I'm trying to set up a cross compilation environment following the steps
details in http://chicken.wiki.br/cross-compilation . This did not
fully apply, here is what I did:
I want to compile on Linux (Ubuntu 8.04) and build Windows executables.
1. I installed the mingw32 package.
2.
Am Mittwoch, den 20.08.2008, 08:29 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 07.08.2008, 23:05 +0200 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
Hi all,
this is once again a slightly complicated test case. Again I
Am Dienstag, den 19.08.2008, 08:59 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
too bad. Once again a fix for the fix.
This time I overlooked a now superflous assignment.
##sys#standard-{in,out}put are already handled
Am Montag, den 18.08.2008, 18:24 +0200 schrieb Tobia Conforto:
Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
There are several timeout, counter and other parameters - within
chicken and elsewhere in my program - if I want to set them from a
remote-repl, which presumably runs in it's own thread
Am Montag, den 18.08.2008, 09:19 -0700 schrieb Elf:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Hi Elf,
first of all: sorry about not having had the time to read your egg but
anyway asking questions about it.
please read the docs in the future, as this issue is addressed.
I'm
There are IMHO more important things we should concentrate on. There's
still
a) a broken SRFI-34 egg - something easily ignored
b) a race condition in the scheduler (which's fix I meanwhile fixed wrt.
to multiple threads waiting for the same fd, though I would not expect
that to ever happen;
Am Dienstag, den 19.08.2008, 14:37 -0300 schrieb Alex Queiroz:
I don't know how many eggs you are currently using,
Frankly: I'm using just two (enviroments and libmagic) and because I'm
still sorta confused about dependencies, I copied both. The former
literally (my code was already
Hi Elf,
Am Dienstag, den 19.08.2008, 08:35 -0700 schrieb Elf:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
There are IMHO more important things we should concentrate on. There's
still
where did this come from? did you cut off what you wre responding to?
Please safe both of us
Am Sonntag, den 17.08.2008, 20:11 +0200 schrieb Tobia Conforto:
Thank you for this commented version!
I will raise my own novice questions if you don't mind.
No matter how careful you are, switching to kernel mode and back is
expensive in comparison to register arithmetic.
Yes,
Hi Kon,
I ran into a problem with SRFI-19 formatting. (Being lazy) I'm not
(yet) using the chicken egg, but the version I made up years ago. Now I
found this bug, which - if there are no other tricks in your code -
should affect the egg too: in date-string the ~s should hit
(cons #\s
Am Montag, den 18.08.2008, 11:15 -0400 schrieb John Cowan:
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
Right now (time-second (date-time-utc (current-date))) is 1219068469.
Which is bigger than a Scheme fixnum. That's the source of the trouble.
Chickens's fixnum on 32bit platform, to be precise
Hi Elf,
first of all: sorry about not having had the time to read your egg but
anyway asking questions about it.
Actually having such a facility and not being able to use it as I *want*
to, made me ask for shared parameter objects at the first place in the
other tread over there.
My context:
with threads. At the moment, you might be
the most experienced user of that library.
It already looks somewhat like that. :-(
Am Sonntag, den 17.08.2008, 03:47 -0700 schrieb Elf:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Hi all,
in this message
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html
Hi all,
this one bit me today.
Find attached a patch to make call-with-input-file and
call-with-output-file thread safe.
/Jörg
Index: library.scm
===
--- library.scm (Revision 11663)
+++ library.scm (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -1944,12
Hi all,
in this message
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/chicken-users/2008-08/msg00066.html
I posted an snippet, which someone suggested as an explanatory example
for the wiki.
Looking closer, I'd rather tear it apart in some discussion, before I
should go there, since it indeed touches a lot
Hi all,
in this message
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/chicken-users/2008-08/msg00094.html
I posted a patch to scheduler.scm, which fixes a race condition wrt. bad
file descriptors in the waiting queue.
(Attached is a slightly brushed up version.)
I have not seen any replies to this message
Am Montag, den 11.08.2008, 09:37 -0700 schrieb Elf:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Am Montag, den 11.08.2008, 07:28 -0700 schrieb Elf:
absolutely not.
second, your patches will flat out not work in default chicken.
B) you are fundamentally changing
Am Donnerstag, den 07.08.2008, 23:05 +0200 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
Hi all,
this is once again a slightly complicated test case. Again I understand
all calls for a simpler version. Just I have a hard time to find one.
I've been able to track this one down to chicken not handling bad
Hi all,
me again :-(
I'm inclined to use those undocumented arguments to make-input-port (for
read-line and read-string). However before I go ahead I'd like to know
how stable the interface is. Or may it be even ok to make them
official?
Thanks
/Jörg
Am Montag, den 11.08.2008, 10:25 +0400 schrieb Aleksej Saushev:
Pipes are not that simple actually, to pass some complex structure
through pipe, you need to pack it to some structure on one end,
parse and unpack on the other end (note all those XML/YAML encodings),
while with _some_ shared
Am Montag, den 11.08.2008, 13:44 +0900 schrieb Ivan Raikov:
The moral of the story is that systems whose behavior is governed
by an explicit, unchanging set of states and transitions is much
easier to reason and think about, than are shared-memory systems
I agree absolutely.
Actually I'm
2008, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Hi,
a few minutes ago I checked out a fresh copy of the chicken source from
svn but failed to build it. Neither dpkg-buildpackage nor make ...
bootstrap got the job done.
I wanted to fix this in the make process, but failed to understand why
Hi all,
since there where no more responses on my last post to this thread, I
decided that it might be the best to supply a patch to this list, which
adds a procedure make-shared-parameter extending the existing
make-parameter in a compatible way. The attached diff (against svn
revision 11597)
and a way to set it's default value
from a thread, while accessing the thread-local one within parameterize.
How should I do that?
-elf
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Hi all,
since there where no more responses on my last post to this thread, I
decided that it might
Am Sonntag, den 10.08.2008, 10:38 -0400 schrieb John Cowan:
a more relevant comparison (and answer) might be 'why don't we get
rid of 'kill -9'?'
...
(except by debuggers that need to freeze threads so
it can inspect their contents, something Scheme doesn't support):
That's what I think:
Am Freitag, den 08.08.2008, 12:08 -0400 schrieb John Cowan:
You should never be executing untrusted compiled code. For that matter,
you should never be compiling untrusted code with any Lisp or Scheme
compiler, given the ability to run arbitrary code at compile time
through the macro system.
My two cents:
If chicken wants to be a practical Scheme system, as it claims on the
website, it should be possible to throw existing Scheme code on it and
have it run. If the code is broken: garbage in, garbage out; stay bug
compatible. If it can deal with the risks it takes: all is well.
Hi all,
I must admit that I'm not happy with the deletion of a single #\i from
the chicken source incurring a lengthy discussion about the usefulness
of the containing definition. I feel this discussion is rather short
sighted. If one was to drop thread-terminate!, one should fix more of
those
Am Samstag, den 09.08.2008, 12:54 +0200 schrieb Tobia Conforto:
Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Users however have a chance to use [...] full (interpreted) Scheme
in their own sandbox.
Then, may I ask what is wrong with these suggestions?
Almost nothing.
Except that those would need a huge
Am Freitag, den 08.08.2008, 19:32 -0700 schrieb Vincent Manis:
So, I'd say, `we're protecting that large group of programmers whom we
would like to persuade that Chicken is a Good Thing'.
Would we really?
If the postulated programmer had just found mygreatprogram on the net
and want's to run
Hi all,
this is not strictly an error, just a DoS kind of catching it: when a
program runs into a deadlock, chicken will endless loop telling me so.
I'm not sure how this should be handled. Normal exit with error might
not be possible, since the finalisation process might deadlock too.
Hi all,
here a small test case, which shows how parameter objects work in
chicken:
%
#!/usr/bin/csi -i
(require-extension srfi-18)
(define p (make-parameter #f))
(define ts (thread-start! (lambda () (thread-sleep! 3) (print now
(p)
(thread-sleep! 1)
(p 42)
(thread-join! ts)
Am Donnerstag, den 07.08.2008, 12:50 -0400 schrieb John Cowan:
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
This will print now #f. To my understanding (and not only mine) of
SRFI-39, it should print now 42.
If you look at the third and fourth paragraphs of the Rationale section of
SRFI-39, you'll
Am Donnerstag, den 07.08.2008, 12:03 -0400 schrieb John Cowan:
Vincent Manis scripsit:
I'd prefer to have the manual document that to the best of our knowledge
thread-terminate works `correctly', but that its use is fraught with
design and testing problems, and therefore it should be
Sorry,
I posted to early, the patch is incorrect. Attached a better one.
Am Donnerstag, den 07.08.2008, 17:08 +0200 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
Hi all,
here a small test case, which shows how parameter objects work in
chicken:
%
#!/usr/bin/csi -i
(require-extension srfi
Hi all,
this is once again a slightly complicated test case. Again I understand
all calls for a simpler version. Just I have a hard time to find one.
For that matter the test case includes three tests. Called as
$ ./tts 2
it will execute the test2, which is - to my understanding - just a
Hi all,
is it ok to do a wild guess?
thread-terminate! looks suspicious here in comparsion to other uses of
thread's slot #2:
$ svn diff srfi-18.scm
Index: srfi-18.scm
===
--- srfi-18.scm (Revision 11547)
+++ srfi-18.scm
Hello,
I attach two implementations of srfi-34's guard syntax. (Depending
only of srfi-18; no additional procedures.)
I'd like to ask Elf, or whoever can do so and cares, to update the egg
(since the version there is broken).
However I'm left with a question: which version would one prefer?
Hi all,
Please find attached a self contained program, which is supposed to run
a useless thread for 3 seconds, kill it (logging a notice about an
exception being caught), create some garbage (logging a notice before
and afterwards) and exit properly.
To compile:
$ csc -o ttm ttm.scm
Here's the
Hi all,
continuing my experiments to catch exceptions in chicken, I've been
working out a more core-chicken-only example.
Let's see. Is this correct as a minimal example?
--- % tg.scm
(require-extension srfi-34)
(print (guard (ex (else 'success)) (call-with-input-string )
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 18:06 +0900 schrieb Ivan Raikov:
What version of Chicken is this on? Your code works fine on my
system (Chicken 3.3.0):
$ ./tg
condition-case-does-a-better-job-than-guard
chicken -version
CHICKEN
(c)2008 The Chicken Team
(c)2000-2007 Felix L. Winkelmann
Version
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 02:56 -0700 schrieb Elf:
i explained this already.
you want with-input-from-string.
not call-with-input-string
and I answered already, that *I* pretty sure call-with-input-string
should be ok too, since it's just direct passing of the port instead of
passing via
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 03:21 -0700 schrieb Elf:
#;1 (use srfi-34)
; loading /usr/lib/chicken/3/srfi-34.scm ...
; loading /usr/lib/chicken/3/syntax-case.so ...
; loading /usr/lib/chicken/3/syntax-case-chicken-macros.scm ...
; loading library srfi-18 ...
#;2 (print (guard (ex (else
to insist on srfi-34: I) standard is
better than better and II) I depend on it for portability.
best regards
/Jörg
-elf
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 03:21 -0700 schrieb Elf:
#;1 (use srfi-34)
; loading /usr/lib/chicken/3/srfi-34.scm
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 05:17 -0700 schrieb Elf:
srfi-34 is meaningless without srfi-35 and srfi-36. nothing in srfi-34
details the actual format of exceptions/conditions.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I consider this separation of concern an
advantage of srfi-34 over srfi-12.
While it's
2008, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 04:48 -0700 schrieb Elf:
the reason for the incompatibilities is that chicken uses the srfi-12
exception model, not the srfi-34, as the srfi-12 model is cleaner,
more flexible, and doesnt require six other srfis in order
BTW: I just compared with SRFI-18:
(raise obj) ;procedure
Calls the current exception handler with obj as the single
argument. obj may be any Scheme object.
Looks to me as if chicken was not compatible with srfi-18 either.
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 14:55 +0200 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 05:26 -0700 schrieb Elf:
furthermore, srfi-34 can be written entirely in terms of srfi-12, while the
reverse is not true.
Great!
So far I have neither an idea how that could be done
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 18:19 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW: I just compared with SRFI-18:
(raise obj) ;procedure
Calls the current exception
Thanks for your reply.
Am Samstag, den 26.07.2008, 13:45 -0700 schrieb Elf:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 24.07.2008, 14:41 -0700 schrieb Elf:
guard is not normally part of chicken.
Still I don't know how to get a basic example working
Am Donnerstag, den 24.07.2008, 12:57 +0200 schrieb Thomas Chust:
Rene Sansman wrote:
[...]
Chicken has worked wonderfully for me so far, but now I have run into
a problem I don't know how to solve. I want to use tinyclos from the
repl, but it does not work. I can use it from compiled
Am Donnerstag, den 24.07.2008, 07:19 -0700 schrieb Elf:
are you using the eval unit and using the repl function contained
therein, or
did you roll your own repl? also, you should be able to require the
chicken-more-macros via (require 'chicken-more-macros) at the top.
Thanks a lot, the
Am Donnerstag, den 24.07.2008, 16:53 +0200 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
Unfortunately chicken's read has already read from the port until the
next #\( - so the SRFI-49 code gets confused. Does anybody have a nice
Scheme reader in pure Scheme or Chicken-Scheme at hand?
Sorry, I blamed
the job done). [The next step is
going to be funny formating and routing of those exceptions. So I
*really* need to get them under control.
So how would I plug my exception handler in place of the standard
exception handler?
Thanks a lot
;; (C) 2008 Joerg F. Wittenberger see http://www.askemos.org
Am Mittwoch, den 09.07.2008, 23:14 +0200 schrieb Hans Bulfone:
hi,
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 02:22:45PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Hi all,
I wanted to control tcp connections from chicken, but handle the actual
traffic by an external program.
This appears not quite possible
there's a new unit files - it needs to be declared as used in csc.scm
otherwise csc refused to work with unbound variable make-pathname
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Hi all,
I wanted to control tcp connections from chicken, but handle the actual
traffic by an external program.
This appears not quite possible with the tcp unit as it stands.
tcp-accept starts reading from the accepted connection while my
connection handler starves. (Or at worst they will
I just noticed an occurrence of bitwise-or in the file regex.scm
function make-anchored-pattern. From my reading of the manual this
should be bitwise-ior - I guess.
Now I tried to submit a ticket to trak, but saw my Submission rejected
as potential spam.
Thanks for handling it anyway.
Am Dienstag, den 20.05.2008, 15:49 +0200 schrieb Leonardo Valeri Manera:
2008/5/19 Mikael More [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi!
I just emailed with Guillaume Germain, the author of Termite. He said it
should be quite easy to port Termite to Chicken. Is anyone up for that?
Me not really. But
Am Dienstag, den 18.03.2008, 09:38 +0100 schrieb Peter Bex:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:41:08AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
Kon == Kon Lovett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kon Summary: I want a byte-string API. I want string
Kon integrations. I want global UTF8 strings.
The only
OK, here mine
pre-university:
Z-80 machine code (self designed/soldered computer [Screen: 32x8
characters each 6 bit - save chips save money]; the assembler was
me, manually)
Basic (Comodore C16)
FORTH (written be myself with the build in 5026[or something] assembler
of the C16)
A real assembler
Am Freitag, den 01.02.2008, 00:41 -0600 schrieb Zbigniew:
A multiple-value call takes the following route under Chicken:
C_call_with_values - C_do_apply - C_values - values_continuation -
C_do_apply. A single-value call is compiled to a function call. You
can see why returning a single list
Am Montag, den 05.11.2007, 17:42 +0100 schrieb Sunnan:
Mark Fredrickson wrote:
Here's a related question for more experienced Schemers: In Dybvig, he
states that the define form:
(define square (lambda (x) (* x x)))
is to be preferred to
(define (square x) (* x x))
After
Am Dienstag, den 02.10.2007, 23:42 +0200 schrieb Benedikt Rosenau:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:33:42AM +0200, Joerg F. Wittenberger wrote:
All of you, who are interested in Scheme (web) application frameworks
might want to have a look at www.askemos.org
Actually, Askemos is one
Am Montag, den 01.10.2007, 10:45 -0400 schrieb Graham Fawcett:
Perhaps it will be a sign of Chicken's maturity if it begins to suffer
from the too many Web frameworks problem that Python encountered a
few years ago. :-)
Once in a while I have to speak up on that topic.
All of you, who are
Hi all,
this is unrelated to chicken, but I don't know any way else do debug
the problem.
Probably due to my yesterdays post, there where unusual many download
on the Askemos white paper
http://www.softeyes.net/A04538159df3258ea68544531bea1c006
Now I have several occurences of error log
401 - 500 of 532 matches
Mail list logo
