Hi,
Therefore I took another route: The existing procedures keep their
current defaults, but there is a new set of object constructors that
uses only keyword arguments and configures things in a more secure
way by default.
That seems sensible to me, in particular as making existing APIs
Hello Dan,
I spent some time today looking into what amount of effort it would
take to add swank-trace-dialog support to the existing SLIME egg; it
turns out that it's quite doable, but as I have a slew of projects on
the go I thought I'd gauge if there's any interest outside of my own
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 07:35:00AM +0100, Florian Zumbiehl wrote:
Hi,
Therefore I took another route: The existing procedures keep their
current defaults, but there is a new set of object constructors that
uses only keyword arguments and configures things in a more secure
way by
Hello everybody,
If I link multiple units into a shared object, load the shared object
and call (exit) I get the warning: Warning: exit called while
processing on-exit task.
If I'm doing this in the interpreter, csi will not exit.
Here is a trivial example:
$ cat a.scm
(declare (unit a))
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 02:13:51PM +, Richard wrote:
Hello everybody,
If I link multiple units into a shared object, load the shared object
and call (exit) I get the warning: Warning: exit called while
processing on-exit task.
If I'm doing this in the interpreter, csi will not exit.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Florian Zumbiehl wrote:
[...]
Regarding specific improvements:
[procedure] (ssl-make-client-context* #!key
((protocol symbol) 'tls) ((cipher-list string|list) HIGH)
((certificate-authorities string) #f)
((certificate-authority-directory string) #f)
Hi Juergen!
Is it possible you've made the same mistake I did with my last
egg-announcement, forgetting to provide a URL for us?
K.
On Oct 28, 2014 5:03 PM, Juergen Lorenz j...@jugilo.de wrote:
Hi all,
I've just uploaded a new egg, arrays, which contains an implementation
of functional
Hi,
shadowing a macro doesn't seem to work properly in all the cases:
(define-syntax my-begin (syntax-rules () ((_ x ...) (begin x ...
(let ((my-begin -)) (my-begin 0 1)) ; = -1 (ok)
(define my-begin -)
(apply my-begin '(0 1)) ; = -1 (ok)
(my-begin 0 1) ; =
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 09:31:44PM +0100, Michele La Monaca wrote:
Hi,
shadowing a macro doesn't seem to work properly in all the cases:
(define-syntax my-begin (syntax-rules () ((_ x ...) (begin x ...
(let ((my-begin -)) (my-begin 0 1)) ; = -1 (ok)
(define my-begin -)
(apply
Hi,
shadowing a macro doesn't seem to work properly in all the cases:
(define-syntax my-begin (syntax-rules () ((_ x ...) (begin x ...
(let ((my-begin -)) (my-begin 0 1)) ; = -1 (ok)
(define my-begin -)
(apply my-begin '(0 1)) ; = -1 (ok)
(my-begin 0 1) ; =
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote:
Yes, this is according to spec. Macros aren't first-class, so whenever
you use the same identifier in a non-application context it will look up
the identifier in the runtime environment. In application context it
will
Michele La Monaca scripsit:
Thus `my-begin' acts as either a procedure or a macro depending on
the context.
Right. Redefining, as opposed to shadowing, a syntax keyword doesn't
destroy its definition as a syntax keyword. However, if it's used in
a context where it cannot be a syntax keyword,
Florian Zumbiehl scripsit:
I am not sure I understand what you mean--you never can protect against a
client that doesn't want to protect the session, they always could just
publish the session key, or the decrypted data, or whatever. The protection
should always focus on third parties that
13 matches
Mail list logo
