On Oct 13 2011, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Recently this code begin to return garbage under gcc 4.4.5
on amd64 and ARM, though more reliable on ARM.
I forgot some marginal thing you might want to know just in case:
With gcc 4.4.5 (as in current debian stable) you really, really
don't want
On Oct 13 2011, Jim Ursetto wrote:
On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
ages ago I wrote these simple lines:
Out of curiosity, would this suit your purposes instead:
(##sys#char-utf8-string (integer-char x))
Looks good.
I did not notice that this made
John,
it's not my intention to argue about the merits of the way the
foreign-lambda* I posted has been written.
(If I had to do so, I would argue that using a dynamic buf
would be better style. Less sensible to being [re]used in a
multi threaded or reentrant environment.)
My point is, that
On Oct 13 2011, John Cowan wrote:
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
So I'll stick with the test case and remove the static keyword from
the buffer definition once I have an updated gcc in my production
environment.
Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to
show
On Oct 13 2011, John Cowan wrote:
Alan Post scripsit:
It does make the routine non-reentrant. Does that matter here?
I don't see how. This routine is called from Chicken, and the string
gets copied into a Chicken string right away.
I suppose you might want to shut off interrupts.
On Oct 13 2011, Alan Post wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 02:46:30PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Alan Post scripsit:
It does make the routine non-reentrant. Does that matter here?
I don't see how. This routine is called from Chicken, and the string
gets copied into a Chicken string right
Sorry JohnFelix,
I must have been overworked.
Some sleep already made me aware that the memory in question is indeed
clobbered. The c-pointer section in the FFI manual is just not clear
about that. (And somehow I must have convinced myself that C_mpointer
would already copy out the memory,
Hi,
I'm again getting complaints from valgrind and now gcc, since I
begin to compile runtime.c with -Wall -Wno-unused (at this time).
Reading the source wrt. the warnings (I'm afraid those might end
up under -OX as code which will in reward trigger valgrind more
or less reasonably.)
In
This turns out to be a very gcc related issue.
Optimisation flags that is.
So far I have this only on
gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.5.2-8ubuntu4) 4.5.2
for sure.
The standard DEBUGBUILD=1 will omit the -Os from the compile.
For me this gives working code and no valgrind complaints.
When I add -Os to
Hi all,
this goes to both chicken-users and chicken-hackers.
I feel it's more appropriate to chicken-hackers,
but recently I bothered the users with help requests on the
issue - maybe it's useful to learn where this ends up.
The problem I ran into:
Much depending on optimisation being done or
Hi Chickeners,
to those of you who will be at CeBit the next days:
join us at our both at the security plaza hall 12!
We'll show you a pure chicken network! ( askemos.org )
Look out for the logo from softeyes.net .
Looking forward to see you there!
/Jörg
To be fair:
On Apr 9 2012, John Cowan wrote:
But, blast it, if little Chibi can include a full numeric tower, why
should Chicken position itself with RScheme and VX, plus a bunch of
broken Schemes that always return a fixnum when multiplying fixnums,
even if it's the wrong one?
See
On Apr 13 2012, Daniel Leslie wrote:
(define-monad
complex-id
(lambda (r i) (values r i))
(lambda (f r i) (f r i)))
Why not:
(define-monad cid (lambda (a) (values (car a) (cdr a)))
(lambda (a f) (f (car a) (cdr a
That's how the logger monad example goes about things. The
On Jun 6 2012, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
Hi,
Several services ({wiki,paste,code,bugs}.call-cc.org) are down at the
moment due to a server outage. We are working to fix things and bring
them back as soon as possible.
Out of curiosity: since I'm running askemos.org on a redundant network
On Oct 14 2012, Felix wrote:
From: John Croisant j...@croisant.net
Subject: [Chicken-users] Bug with #!optional in Chicken 4.8.0
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 20:34:26 -0400
In Chicken 4.8.0, procedures defined with #!optional no longer signal
an exception if invoked with too many arguments. For
Without having seen the code in question:
my guess would be that those FILE*-ports would
do i/o-buffering. flush-output might already help.
???
On Oct 24 2012, Felix wrote:
From: Mario Domenech Goulart mario.goul...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Pipe and thread problem
Date: Wed, 24
I recall there was some txpath.scm, which parses XPath and produces sxpath.
Maybe that might help?
On Nov 2 2012, Felix wrote:
From: Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Is
there any documentation about SXpath available? Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012
14:20:55 +0100
On Tue,
Hi Matt,
I know you've been asking quite a different question.
But judging from your aimsgoals, maybe it's worth to look at
ball.askemos.org ; runs on chicken and rscheme. (see
http://ball.askemos.org/DevelopmentNetwork )
It might save you quite some work and bring in at least one more
On Jan 18 2013, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Hi Matt,
To ease understanding I should add:
This /. poster basically asks for what BALL does. A RAID or cluud
providers.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/01/13/2135233/ask-slashdot-linux-mountable-storage-pool-for-all-the-cloud-systems
Hi Daniel,
On Jan 18 2013, Daniel Leslie wrote:
A little off-topic for this list, but it comes up now and then so I'll dive
into it. Every time Askemos comes up I get a deep curiousity that has me
exclaiming What is this thing?! Especially after perusing pages like this
one
2013, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Jan 18 2013, Daniel Leslie wrote:
A little off-topic for this list, but it comes up now and then so I'll
dive into it. Every time Askemos comes up I get a deep curiousity that
has me exclaiming What is this thing?! Especially after perusing pages
Hello $all,
we've been recently in touch regarding Askemos. Now I might need
some help, if you can.
Until Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:55:00 +0100 the Askemos cloud ran on
a rather healthy mix of peers.
Pardon me? }:-| ??? …
On Jan 18 2013, Daniel Leslie wrote:
A little off-topic for this list,
Hello $all,
we've been recently in touch regarding Askemos. Now I might need
some help, if you can.
Until Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:55:00 +0100 the Askemos cloud ran on
a rather healthy mix of peers.
Pardon me? }:-| ??? …
On Jan 18 2013, Daniel Leslie wrote:
A little off-topic for this list,
at 1:32 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote:
Hello $all,
we've been recently in touch regarding Askemos. Now I might need
some help, if you can.
And, erm, what are the minimal steps for bootstrapping a server which
can collaborate on this *ethical cloud
On Jan 25 2013, ianG wrote:
On 25/01/13 11:07 AM, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
On Jan 24 2013, Daniel Leslie wrote:
I can possibly get you shell accounts in Austria. I can't guarantee the
security or robustness, I don't use them myself because they tend to
migrate faster than I can keep up
Hi Allison,
I guess Alan
http://c0redump.org/wiki/Main_Page
would love to follow your reply here reply too:
http://askemos.org/A5ae3c14013b6fe38b4aa66a2697e097f?_id=2657_v=comment
given his prior work in permaculture:
https://github.com/alanpost/permaculture-design-course/tree/master/guild
cleaning up my backlog, sorry for the late reply
On Jan 31 2013, Felix wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2013 08:16 PM, Felix wrote:
I'm turning to you because I have no idea how to continue with
analyzing a very odd behavior of my channel egg's test cases.
# Askemos – What is it?
I keep receiving positive comments to Askemos/BALL-related code posted
to Chicken lists. (Some examples below.) However people seem almost
scared to use it for their own good.
This code base became what I'd call a swiss-army knife to **simplify**
tasks like backup,
On Feb 20 2013, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
join-strings, and string-match or match-string. Another is to
keep the s- prefix, which is a natural grouping. Or you could
require the user to prefix on import, but if that's always needed due
to conflicts, why make them go through the extra
On Feb 21 2013, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
On 21 Feb 2013 20:50:16 +0100 Jörg F. Wittenberger
joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote:
On Feb 20 2013, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
join-strings, and string-match or match-string. Another is to
keep the s- prefix, which is a natural
Somehow I can't verify that my type declarations are actually
effective.
So far I noticed that when I make usage-error wrt. types I
- within a single file that is -
get an error in tje compilation step.. Which is what I like.
Now that I've got a .types file for each module, I tried to
enforce
On Feb 21 2013, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Somehow I can't verify that my type declarations are actually
effective.
I've been able to verify that my .types files are not ever consulted.
Using strace I found that the foo.types file is searched for in
stat(/usr/lib/chicken/6/foo.types
Hi all,
as usual it's challenging to compile an application using a new
version of chicken. (In this case I try to upgrade from 5.7.5 to
current git master.)
Somehow the initialization has changed. Now it breaks upon the
use or slightly complex irregexp's.
I figured out that this is due to
Trying to use -block optimization fails for me badly.
I have a module, which is very simple - Scheme wise.
It's an interface to offload C-call to pthreads (code here:
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/chicken-users/2010-01/msg00046.html
).
For it's simplicity I picked that one to try the
After maintaining a codebase for a couple of years,
I ended up having all my code converted into modules
(while in the beginning there where no modules, just
units).
During the transition I learned that I still need to
maintain the (uses ...) clauses as they where before.
Now I wanted to kick
On Mar 24 2013, Moritz Heidkamp wrote:
Jörg F. Wittenberger joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net writes:
Now I wanted to kick out need to keep duplicates of
the requirements; once in the uses cluse and below in
the import list.
Can give an example of what you refer to as import list?
(declare
On Mar 24 2013, Peter Bex wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:05:49PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
For some reason, several - though not all - procedures
turn out to be undefined (e.g. resolve to an unbound value
and then segfault accordingly).
Segfaults should only happen if aggressive
On Mar 25 2013, Peter Bex wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:07:15AM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
What's more tricky is that bindings, e.g., make-hash-table
resolve to unbond in the runtime initialization even though
there is an (import srfi-69) in the module.
I can fix this by giving
On Mar 25 2013, Peter Bex wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:52:39AM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
On Mar 25 2013, Peter Bex wrote:
These both don't cut it for me.
I'm using rather often (import (only module ) (except from sonthing))
Both use and require-extension seem to import all
I tried to fix my testcase using the as below.
Does't work:
Warning: in toplevel procedure `foo#bar':
expression returns a result of type `null', but is declared to return
`(list-of number)', which is not a subtype
This alternative is not any better:
(let ((foobar (the (or null (list-of
On Mar 25 2013, Moritz Heidkamp wrote:
(let ((foobar (the (or null (list-of number)) '(
Warning: in toplevel procedure `foo#bar':
expression returns a result of type `null', but is declared to return
(list-of number)', which is not a subtype
It seems you can trick the compiler by using
On May 4 2013, Ivan Raikov wrote:
I think you can try to have native threads by running a separate instance
of the Chicken runtime for each thread, but are you sure that you will
really achieve a significant speedup over Unix processes and/or MPI?
It's not the early nineties anymore... I
Hi all,
not exactly chicken related; but I hope someone here can help me.
I'm trying to replace an unhygienic macro with a syntax-rules
based version. Just I can't.
What I need is a sub-macro.
http://community.schemewiki.org/?scheme-faq-macros#H-1tseqi3
I want to have a define-alike to
On May 12 2013, Peter Bex wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 05:02:46PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Thanks Peter,
but... it doesn't do the trick for me either.
Nevertheless when I follow your advice and pass _ for the unused outer
ellipsis, I still end up with the same problem: foo
On May 12 2013, Peter Bex wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:57:12PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
The idea is to have a definer, `deftig` here, which only abstracts the
argument list of the defined procedure away. Here a literal of the
original macro (as used in a limited/extended XSLT
On May 12 2013, Marco Maggi wrote:
Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
not exactly chicken related; but I hope someone here can
help me.
I am not a Chicken user, neither I have a general
solution. ;-)
I'm trying to replace an unhygienic macro with a
syntax-rules based
Hi all,
the past days I wasted trying to wrap my head around a hygienic
replacement (using syntax-rules) for a macro, which is all too easily
done in an unhygienic way (with all the downsides of accidental
variable captures).
I need some syntax to define a set of procedures, which all have the
Eventually I learned that the technique I've been looking for is
known singe 2001 by the name Petrofsky Extraction.
Thanks to everyone who bothered trying to understand my needs.
FYI find the solution below. I should not be able hygienize
the questionable code.
/Jörg
On May 16 2013, Jörg F
On May 27 2013, Michele La Monaca wrote:
R5RS doesn't specify this kind of syntax (nor Chicken supports it):
(let* loop ((a init) (b a))
body)
To me it seems a missing piece of syntax. Am I wrong?
I've missed it occasionally as well, but I'm not sure it's *that* useful.
Of course
Hi all,
these days I ran (again as every once in a while) a case which made me
longing for a make(1) in Scheme. Gave the make egg a try and… decided I'd
need something else. Something powerful enough to make it easier to
maintain Chickens build and similar complex things.
So far I ended up
Hi Moritz,
On Jun 12 2013, Moritz Heidkamp wrote:
Hi Jerry,
Jörg F. Wittenberger joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net writes:
these days I ran (again as every once in a while) a case which made me
longing for a make(1) in Scheme. Gave the make egg a try and… decided
I'd need something else
sorry, I'Ve been lying.
Accidental :-/
On Jun 12 2013, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
I know the feeling! And I have started a project in that direction, as
well. It's been on a detour due to some yaks on the road for a bit now
but I have hopes to find time to hack on the actual thing again
soon
On Jul 26 2013, Michele La Monaca wrote:
Hi,
I am investigating the feasibility and the opportunity to write
(basic) Win32 GUI apps using Chicken. So far I think I've obtained
good results leveraging Christian Kellermann's nice technique to
handle callbacks
On Aug 22 2013, Michele La Monaca wrote:
How can I check if a symbol is bound to a value?
Oleg Kiselyov's receipe might be helpful here:
http://okmij.org/ftp/Scheme/macro-symbol-p.txt
I would like to do this:
(define host example.com)
(eping host) ; host is evaluated
(eping
Hi Loïc,
I did not look on your paste. But a few hints:
alists are O(n) while hashtable are O(1) .
However the constant involved is larger for hashtable then alists.
Therefore alists are fast for small numbers of elements in the list.
Tables win when the number of elements becomes larger.
Am 27.11.2013 20:32, schrieb Hugo Arregui:
On 27/11/13, m...@freeshell.de wrote:
On a sidenote:
It seems that there is an analgon to go routines on Erlang, which can be
accessed the LFE (Lisp Flavoured Erlang). However, that would require to
learn the entire Erlang VM ecosystem.
A Lisp
Hi all,
recently I'm stuck in a strange situation. At the moment I can't make
head or tail of it. Any hint what I could try very much appreciated!!!
The net result: some machines will work for some time and then
not-quite-freeze; they will still work somewhat as below.
Has anybody ever
Am 01.12.2013 23:12, schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
Hi all,
recently I'm stuck in a strange situation. At the moment I can't make
head or tail of it. Any hint what I could try very much appreciated!!!
The net result: some machines will work for some time and then
not-quite-freeze
Am 08.12.2013 19:01, schrieb .alyn.post.:
I'm getting an error message when I use |(declare (block))|.
...
what's going on with |(declare (block))| here? I don't understand
the documentation on this declare option to know whether I'm doing
something wrong or whether this code cannot be
Am 08.12.2013 18:21, schrieb John Cowan:
.alyn.post. scripsit:
I'm trying to read /etc/passwd using getpwent(3) and store each
record returned in a scheme list.
The very first thing I would try is switching to getpwent_r(), because
the fact that getpwent() uses a static buffer internally may
Strange: I can NOT reproduce this problem.
Which chicken and which OS are you on?
Am 07.12.2013 20:23, schrieb Michael Greenly:
I've been trying to learn how threads work but have become a bit
stumped by this example:
https://gist.github.com/mgreenly/7847072#file-graceful-scm
My assumption
Am 06.03.2014 09:05, schrieb Daniel Carrera:
Hello,
I have recently learned about set-car! and set-cdr! which eventually
led me to learn about how Racket removed them years ago for the
reasons given in this post:
http://blog.racket-lang.org/2007/11/getting-rid-of-set-car-and-set-cdr.html
Am 10.03.2014 15:51, schrieb Daniel Carrera:
Hello,
I found a Scheme implementation of the Caesar cipher on Rosetta Code.
It said This was written by a novice, please review... So I reviewed
it, and basically rewrote it.
I think my version is much better (clearer)
I tend to agree that
Am 14.03.2014 22:23, schrieb Peter Bex:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:44:44PM +0100, pluijzer . wrote:
...
Hello Pluijzer, I had a look at the GC again, and from what I can make
of it, this happens only for constants (objects that do not live in
the stack or heap).
According to the manual,
Hi Evan,
I made some progress with getting fuse to run in multi threaded mode.
Though I avoided direct C-Chicken calls. While I dunno, I'm pretty
sure those are not re-entrant.
Right now the code is in dire need of some cleanup. E.g. foreign type
declarations still on all callbacks, but
Hi Evan,
somehow I could not rest without *knowing* that C-Chicken calls are not
thread safe.
As I wrote yesterday I lived in the believe of this being a fact. Now I
re-read the manual section on callbacks.
According to my reading manual/Callbacks the 3rd paragraph in the
introduction
Hi Peter,
I agree with your assessment. It suggested an idea to me, which may or
may not be that good:
Use the type system to deprecate those parts know to be broken.
Maybe it would even be a good idea to extend the type system for that
purpose. By now all you can do is
(: broken-thing
Am 03.07.2014 17:34, schrieb Daniel Leslie:
Unless I missed a radical change in Chicken, its SRFI-18 threads are
green threads and not real system threads. As a result, blocking
operations will block all threads and no real gain is had from the
hardware's support for multithreading.
I know this is slightly off-topic. Related so far only to SXML, XSLT and
chicken, because it's written in Chicken and implements and uses some
XSLT and SXML (and SRFI-110 a.k.a. sweet expressions - a python like
form to write LISP) quite a lot. So maybe it's helpful source to copy
from in it.
Am 20.08.2014 16:04, schrieb Michele La Monaca:
Hi (again),
1) Is this supposed to be the correct output?
(normalize-pathname /) - /.
2) I think it would be a good idea to strip any trailing slash, otherwise:
(string=? (normalize-pathname /tmp/) (normalize-pathname /tmp)) - #f
What would
Am 06.09.2014 14:27, schrieb Mario Domenech Goulart:
Hi Andy,
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 11:17:16 +0100 Andy Bennett andy...@ashurst.eu.org wrote:
[1] See original vulnerability announcement for details:
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/chicken-users/2012-06/msg00031.html
Is the
Did I already recommend this? Sorry if that's a duplication.
One more example of SXML together with SRFI 110 sweet expressions
(indent sensitive LISP syntax). Those two blend well together. I'm
using them embedded in XML (XSLT) here:
Am 01.10.2014 um 10:18 schrieb Kooda:
Hello fellow CHICKEN users,
I’d like to announce my first egg contribution: the Hardwood egg.
This egg is an attempt at reviving a Termite-like API.
This first release provides the basic constructs for creating processes
and pass messages between them.
Am 04.12.2014 um 21:25 schrieb Sascha Ziemann:
It seems to me that the use of //* duplicates the inner 'a' node:
That's not what it does. I'm not completely sure that XPath does
require this behavior, but I tend to believe this is the right thing to
do. // is supposed to yield all descendant
Am 20.01.2015 um 23:41 schrieb co...@ccil.org:
Chris Vine:
Does anyone know if thread-terminate! can safely be called on a
thread which is blocking on thread-wait-for-i/o!, without putting
chicken's internals into an inconsistent state.
Calling thread-terminate! in any circumstances may
Hi all,
for a couple of days I've been looking into iup for chicken. This is
close to the best thing since sliced bread in a way.
Except that it crashes all the time. callback returned twice
So what's the recipe to hit that problem?
(The code is fairly trivial; I'm just exploring. Actually
Argh,
yeah, I forgot to post the gridbox code I added to iup-base.scm It's
trivial too. Just like the other constructors. I added it right above
hbox, since that's where it apears in the docs.
(define gridbox
(make-constructor-procedure
(foreign-lambda* nonnull-ihandle
Hi Christian,
thanks for your reply. I'll have to look into this. Maybe fixing the
iup in that respect is doable.
Am 26.06.2015 um 09:39 schrieb Christian Kellermann:
Jörg F. Wittenberger joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net writes:
Except that it crashes all the time. callback returned twice
Hi all,
I'm trying to get iup running. It fails around line 355 in iup-base.scm
when creating the wrapper object raising an illegal instruction.
Anyone a good idea what a common reason could be?
(Aside: Jürgen: is there a way to ease development of the iup egg?
chicken-install will always
17.06.2015 um 13:52 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
Hi all,
I'm trying to get iup running. It fails around line 355 in iup-base.scm
when creating the wrapper object raising an illegal instruction.
Anyone a good idea what a common reason could be?
(Aside: Jürgen: is there a way to ease
Am 14.06.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Peter Bex:
Also there's something strange going on - I observe object references
being mixed up. (Though this could be an unrelated bug, it never
happened in the past couple of years.)
Can you make a program that can reproduce these problems?
Fixed.
This
Hi all,
I'm caught in the compiled vs. evaluated semantics...
In csi everything runs perfect, but in compiled mode I'm confuse why
eval does not see most bindings. What am I missing?
The crazy thing: in the attached file bar is bound only when compile
as `csc tt.scm` (the else branch in the
Hi,
I noticed that mixing exception handling from both styles does not work
well with the srfi-34 egg as it is. I'm afraid after importing srfi-34
one has to be aware that there now two definitions of
with-exception-handler. One from chicken's library and the srfi-34 one.
So far I can't see
Am 26.07.2015 um 14:13 schrieb Thomas Chust:
On 2015-07-25 19:54, Matt Welland wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
This assessment is surprising to me. Maybe I did not yet run into the
issues?
For a couple of days I've been trying this out. On debian/ARM
Am 25.07.2015 um 09:46 schrieb Matt Welland:
For any android users who haven't tried it you might like Debian no root.
Ah, interesting a thing. I did not know about it.
But where to get a device with Android 5?
(Actually I'm confused. I lived in the untested believe that the
graphics under
Hi all,
attached the code of two new eggs.
llrb-syntax contains a syntax-rules implementation of left-leaning
red-black trees. It expands code maintaining LLRB trees in a data
structure defined by the user. Depending at the use case it will either
allocate temporary space (in the pure case) or
ot;delete!"
etc. However this requires "set!" and "empty?" to be available to the
implementation as syntax and then be bound to procedures and exported.
Is there is recipe how to do that?
Best
/Jörg
Am 25.10.2015 um 19:41 schrieb "Jörg F. Wittenberger":
>
Am 24.10.2015 um 20:57 schrieb "Jörg F. Wittenberger":
> 4) string->symbol puts #3 upside down:
> string->symbol 100 calls in 111935.0 ms
> caching the result in a LLRB-string tree naturally adds overhead on the
> first call: str2sym 100 refs in 185748.0ms
Hi all,
I did some more refinements to the LLRB-code I recently posted here.
However I got stuck on the inability to decide which API to use.
The idea is to have a type "binding-set" (is there a better name?) as an
alternative t alists.
However when it comes to `fold` I'm not sure if it is
Am 27.10.2015 um 14:26 schrieb John Cowan:
> "Jörg F. Wittenberger" scripsit:
>
>> [1] http://www.webfunds.org/guide/ricardian_implementations.html
>
> I read this with interest, but what does it have to do with David Ricardo?
For an authoritative answer you would ha
the minimum amount of mutation using
local variables for the rotation operations. Still this much of a
difference.
But maybe I'm totally wrong at this guess.
/Jörg
>
> Marc
>
>> On Oct 26, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
>> <joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net> wrote
t; API wrt.
to srfi-1 vs. srfi-69 order.
So I'll have to redo some things. Sorry for the noise.
/Jörg
Am 24.10.2015 um 20:57 schrieb "Jörg F. Wittenberger":
> Hi all,
>
> attached the code of two new eggs.
>
> llrb-syntax contains a syntax-rules implementatio
Am 03.11.2015 um 13:12 schrieb Mario Domenech Goulart:
> Hello Jörg,
>
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 12:40:15 +0100 "Jörg F. Wittenberger"
> <joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net> wrote:
>
>> Following the instructions on http://wiki.call-cc.org/releasing-your-e
Hi,
Following the instructions on http://wiki.call-cc.org/releasing-your-egg
I posted two release-info files. But those fail to work with
chicken-install.
Unfortunately the error message does not tell me much. And the files
look pretty much as in the examples given at the wiki page above.
Am 29.10.2015 um 20:57 schrieb John Cowan:
> "Jörg F. Wittenberger" scripsit:
>
>> However when it comes to `fold` I'm not sure if it is better to follow
>> the srfi-1 argument order (combiner-initial-set) or the srfi-69 style
>> order (set-combiner-in
ose "binding-set"s are immutable. To work with the `doto`
macro the latter would have to return the result of the application of
`proc` instead of `var`.
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> Original Message
> From: Jörg F. Wittenberger
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 20
Am 06.11.2015 um 22:16 schrieb Mario Domenech Goulart:
> Hello Jörg,
>
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 21:29:44 +0100 "Jörg F. Wittenberger"
> <joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net> wrote:
>
>> Here is one more egg:
>>
>> http://ball.askemos.org/Aad0f198cd7
Hi,
Am 07.11.2015 um 14:51 schrieb "Jörg F. Wittenberger":> Am 06.11.2015 um
22:16 schrieb Mario Domenech Goulart:
...
>> Note that we already have srfi-101 packaged as an egg:
>> http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/srfi-101
I'm curious how much chicken will do on this
Am 04.11.2015 um 06:41 schrieb John Cowan:
> "Jörg F. Wittenberger" scripsit:
>
>> Firstly I have not found a way to rename identifiers on export (as in
>> r6rs libraries). Is there really no way or did I miss it?
>
> That's a Chicken limitation I hope will
Here is one more egg:
http://ball.askemos.org/Aad0f198cd7fcfc96ea59bcbeec340556/srfi-101.release-info
This simply slaps a module/egg around srfi-101 "Purely Functional
Random-Access Pairs and Lists".
However I'm not yet confident that the way I'm handling exports is the
right thing to do.
101 - 200 of 300 matches
Mail list logo
