On Sep 27 2011, Alex Shinn wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote:
I found theses definitions in the irregex code mirroring srfi-1
simplified cases.
(define (filter pred ls)
(let lp ((ls ls) (res '()))
(if (null? ls)
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote:
But not including those two definitions should IMHO not do any harm.
I simply can not see where those would be used within irregex.scm.
Sorry, I thought you were suggesting importing
srfi-1 instead of
While I've been looking at the code I wondered if the C compiler
will fur sure pull that one test out of the for-loop.
Maybe it's better no have it there at the first place.
IMHO the code is not more confusing to read this way and should
run better in case the C compiler is not smart enough.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 03:22:06PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
While I've been looking at the code I wondered if the C compiler
will fur sure pull that one test out of the for-loop.
Maybe it's better no have it there at the first place.
IMHO the code is not more confusing to read this
It appears that modules either leak define-for-syntax bindings, or
aren't meant to contain them. If the latter is the case, please ignore.
However, this seems unintuitive.
(module test ()
(import scheme chicken)
(define-for-syntax + string-append))
$ csi -nq
#;1 (use test)
;
On Sep 27 2011, Peter Bex wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 03:22:06PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
While I've been looking at the code I wondered if the C compiler
will fur sure pull that one test out of the for-loop.
Maybe it's better no have it there at the first place.
IMHO the code is
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 09:21:15PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
On Sep 27 2011, Peter Bex wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 03:22:06PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
While I've been looking at the code I wondered if the C compiler
will fur sure pull that one test out of the for-loop.
